Why do the thinking, when you can use the internet to ask someone else?
Keith S. Taber
Image by GraphicMama-team from Pixabay
Good afternoon Sir, I am [name omitted] a student of Chemistry Education at university of [university and country omitted].
I am about starting my Undergraduate degree Project,
I will be glad if I can send my write ups to you subsequently to check and give me ideas.
I will be glad if accept my proposal, longing to hear from you soon. Thanks, yours Faithful.
Dear [name omitted]
Thank you for writing to me to tell me that you are about to embark on your undergraduate project. Your university should be able to provide you with a project supervisor, so if you are unsure about this, please talk to your tutor.
It would not be appropriate for me to check your write-ups and give you my ideas for your work. Leaving aside that I am employed to support students in my own University, your University would likely consider it cheating for you to ask academics elsewhere to provide input to your work.
Best wishes
Keith
First published 24th July 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
In scholarly circles it is sometimes said "Publish, or be dammed" (a variation on the 'Publish and be dammed" retort to blackmail), and there is no doubt that, generally, success in academia – when judged in such mundane terms as getting academic positions, keeping them, getting promoted – in large part requires academics to build up their publication list.
The value of peer review
Quality should obviously be more important than quantity, but that requires evaluations of the former. The peer review process that is used by most journals is far from perfect, but is said (like democracy) to be, despite its flaws, the best system we have. Quality journals depend upon rigorous peer review to ensure that articles published will be recognised within a field to be robust and significant. Peer review takes time. Some publishers pressure editors and reviewers to work to a short time scale – but there is always a fine balance: the review needs to be done carefully, and by experts – rather than either hastily, or by those who are not really qualified but will have a go because they want the reviewing on their c.v (resumé)
Authors are under pressure to publish, and publish quickly. (Indeed I am aware that recently university employees in one country were put under pressure to get published quickly even if that meant compromising where the work was published).
Peer review not only leads to rejection of substandard work, but also provides feedback on submitted work that could be published, suggesting improvements indicated. Such suggestions inevitably are somewhat subjective – but I think most editors would agree that generally the peer review process improves the quality of the final published article – even if it often delays the process by some months and requires authors to go back and do further work when they might have hoped to have moved on to the next article they want to write.
Ultimately peer review (when done carefully by qualified reviewers) means not only that there is quality control that rejects poor work, but that several people scrutinise published work, point out any mistakes missed by authors, and often suggest changes that will lead to work more likely to impress the readership and have lasting impact. As authors we should welcome rigorous peer review of our work – even if sometimes we do not agree with the criticisms of our precious writing.
Instant gratification – immediate publication
Since the advent of on-line publishing, it has become very easy to start a journal, and the number of journals out there has proliferated. (Read 'Challenges to academic publishing from the demand for instant open access to research'.) This makes it hard sometimes, especially for new scholars, to know which journals are of high quality. Many journal publishers are looking to get a competitive edge by speeding up processes. I know from my own role as an editor that it is now possible, sometimes, to get a paper from submission to publication in around a month – but this is still the exception and a quality journal will never look to speed up the process by deliberately selecting referees who are not thorough or avoiding author revisions that are indicated.
So I was rather surprised to get an invitation from a journal I was not familiar with, International Educational Scientific Research Journal, entitled 'Publish your paper in May issue' on 15th April. The idea that I could submit something and have it published two weeks later seemed unlikely if there was any kind of robust peer review process in place. However, the email suggested that the
"Last date for manuscript submission is 30th April, 2016 for 1st May, 2016 Issue".
Really?
Dubious impact factors
Of course it is quite possible that the 1st May issue may not appear till September (that would not be a first in journal publishing), but otherwise this seemed to shout "we publish anything, quality not an issue". This is a journal which charges fees to authors – and the homepage suggests that the cost depends on the length of the manuscript and (oddly) the number of authors. However the email also claimed an Impact factor of 3.606.
If I was a new scholar I would likely be very impressed by an impact factor of over 3, as I know many quality specialist journals in my field with much lower impact factors. However, visiting the webpage revealed that the impact factor has not be awarded by Thomson Reuters, the organisation used by most quality journals, but rather by 'SJIF'.
The impact factors used by top journals reflect how many times (on average) each of their published papers are cited in articles in the highly ranked journals over a period. I found the webpage of the SJIF and found that it evaluates journals on a wide range of criteria, such as number of papers published, language of papers, quality of graphics and many other things. Some of the criteria used are certainly relevant to journal quality – but this type of evaluation is not comparable to the impact factors that are recognised and used by the top academic publishers.
The academic publishing landscape is very diverse today. The possibility of open publishing, and the easy access to tools to publish internet journals, is to be welcomed – but makes it more difficult for scholars to know which journals are genuinely of quality. There is certainly no intrinsic value in a journal having slow processes and all authors welcome a speedy review and publication process. Ultimately, however, submit today, publish tomorrow is likely to mean ignored thereafter.
Fingerprint image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay
Dear ***** ****
Thank you for your message, asking me download a paper using the University of Cambridge library subscription, and then send you a copy of the pdf. I am sure you are aware that if I did this I would be breaching the terms of my use of the library subscription. It is unfortunate that your institution does not have a subscription to this journal (and quite incredible if as you suggest "only a person from Cambridge university can access this article….A person from any other institution cannot access this article" – I guess the journal cannot be of very high quality if no other institutions in the world subscribe to it).
As you are an academic (moreover, apparently a well renowned researcher in your field who has been awarded many distinctions nationally and internationally) you must be aware what you are asking is improper. The article is copyright material and the publisher is entitled to charge a fee for access. You are asking me (and many colleagues here) to be complicit in an act of theft. It is poor academic practice for you to make this request. I realise it must be very frustrating for you to not have ready access to an article you wish to read for your work – however, rather than composing emails to people you do not know, and asking them to undertake an underhand and improper act (which could in principle lead to them being disciplined for breaching the legal contract between library user, library and publisher), perhaps you could find a legal way to access the article:
perhaps your library could arrange an inter-library loan;
if the authors are still alive, perhaps they would send you a preprint;
if all else fails, perhaps you could raise the thirty US dollars to enable you to buy a copy of this 'really crucial' article from the publisher.
If this work is so essential for your research, you might consider if it is worth buying rather than asking someone to steal it for you.
I am sorry not to be more helpful, as I am aware many academics see copyright and licensing infringement as very minor matters, but I actually think both that legal agreements should be respected (certainly unless they represent clear violations of higher rights) and that academics, as professional authors themselves, should take intellectual property rights seriously.
Best wishes
Keith
(First published 20th January 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/)
Thank you for your email asking about review times.
You will appreciate that I was a little confused by your message.
You tell me that you are a "Deputy Head of Foreign Economic Legislation at the Financial Legislation Department" somewhere unspecified (apparently in Ukraine, although you use a hotmail account) and that you "have a PhD degree in Law" and you are eager to get your article (unspecified) published in "the" (unspecified) journal. So immediately I am quite confused as I am not associated with any journals in that field at all. I edit a journal in chemistry education, but that would hardly seem relevant.
Then you suggest you are "just a beginner at it". I assume 'it' here is scholarly research, or writing for publication – in which case perhaps you should be co-writing with a mentor or supervisor – and perhaps not targeting top international journals at this stage. This claim is hardly likely to recommend you to high status research journals.
Even if you were referring to the journal I edit, it is not possible to "specify the approximate time it would take to review the article". Usually authors get a first decision within a matter of weeks – but this depends on the availability of suitable reviewers, and whether the reviewers who first comment offer consistent recommendations. Nearly all articles published pass through two or more rounds of review as authors respond to initial reviewer comments, and the reviewers evaluate the revised manuscript(s). Articles certainly can sometimes be published within a month, but it may take much longer.
I am pleased to hear you have "many good ideas and ongoing projects in different fields of science… connected to further development and promotion of my scientific work and that of my colleagues" – that must be quite time consuming in view of your professional responsibilities as a lawyer. I can certainly understand that you "do not have much free time". However, even if "that is why my assistant will respond to the messages", journal editors tend to only deal with article authors, not their staff.
To be honest, it seems obvious that you do not actually have any work to submit to any journal I am involved with, and that no one undertaking serious scholarly work would send such vague undirected emails asking for this kind of information, so please forgive me if I assume some kind of scam or scheme is behind your message. Perhaps your request was innocent enough, but I wonder how many people you sent this message to? And what you hope to do with any responses?
Likely you will only get responses from journals desperate for authors looking to pay for publication regardless of article quality. As Groucho might have advised, you would not want to be published in the kind of journal that would encourage contributions in response to your kind of approach.
Best wishes
Keith
(First published on 2nd October, 2015 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/)
And a voice in the wilderness was heard calling out upon the racing wind: our Psychology conference offers publication and an unformed fear!
Keith S. Taber
This week's* most bizarre invitation is to submit a proposal to a Psychology conference:
"The aim objective of CPSY 2016 is to provide a platform for researchers, engineers, academicians as well as industrial professionals from all over the world to present their research results and development activities in Psychology. Submitted conference papers will be reviewed by technical committees of the Conference."
Well that all sounds pretty standard. But then the next paragraph begins:
"Before her eyes as she gazed a smooth plain of snow spread out in the distance. The wind, carrying white, shaggy masses, raced over the plain, piping cold, shrill whistles."
I'm not sure they are really selling the location (in Shanghai, China) as an ideal place for a conference. The paragraph continued….
"Across the snowy expanse moved a girl's figure, dark and solitary, rocking to and fro. The wind fluttered her dress, clogged her footsteps, and drove pricking snowflakes into her face. Walking was difficult; the little feet sank into the snow. Cold and fearful the girl bent forward, like a blade of grass, the sport of the wanton wind. To the right of her on the marsh stood the dark wall of the forest; the bare birches and aspens quivered and rustled with a mournful cry. Yonder in the distance, before her, the lights of the city glimmered dimly."
Perhaps the airport is some way outside the City?
Perhaps the lights 'glimmered dimly' due to air pollution – I've supervised a student from China who told me it can get pretty bad there.
The next paragraph tells me that the conference proceedings will be published by "by DEStech Publications" and will be indexed, for example in Google Scholar. Then I am told:
"'Lord in heaven, have mercy!' the mother muttered again, shuddering with the cold and horror of an unformed fear."
It seems papers are invited in areas including educational psychology and the psychology of learning, so although I am not a psychologist, I can see there might be presentations of interest. But it does sound a bit chilly there, and I think I probably already have enough unformed fears without travelling half way around the world to develop some more.
Perhaps they just wanted to get my attention.
Perhaps it's an experiment with different recipients randomly split into groups getting different messages in their invitations, to see if there is differential uptake?
Perhaps the person who prepared the copy did not have the high level of English skills they claimed when they applied for the job?
Or they had just learnt to 'cut and paste'?
Or perhaps this was prepared on someone's last day in post, and they had not enjoyed their employment there?
If anyone reading this is going to the '2016 International Conference on Psychology' next June, perhaps you'd be kind enough to drop me a line if you find out what that was all about!
* First published 9th September 2015 (at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/) – but I'd still be interested to hear from anyone who went to the conference!
I found a very kind invitation from an organisation calling itself "Peak Performance International" in my email Inbox this morning * ('Parents Workshop on 12th September 2015')), inviting me to a 'free' 2 hour workshop (in Nairobi) – free as long as I booked before a certain date.
The organisation claims to be run by two parents who had been concerned at their daughter's lack of progress at school and so (as one does) had travelled to various countries including "the US, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia" to learn about programmes of "Accelerated Learning and Brain Development". They claim that what they found was "mind blowing":
We saw children who would flip through a 200 page book of completely new material, at high speed for just a few minutes and then give an accurate account of what the book was about. Others would mentally calculate long mathematical equations and give the correct answers instantly while Professors took so long and still [did] not get the correct answer.
During our tour we attended several trainings. I learnt more about the brain than I had ever done in my whole life. I understood how easy it was to assist children tap into their genius realm and experience quantum leaps in IQ and EQ (Emotional Intelligence) by synchronizing the two brain hemispheres.
It seems Peak Performance International are now keen to share their findings with other parents, thus the invitation to their workshop. How I would have liked to think this is a genuine (even if misguided) and kind gesture. There may be the odd savant who can complete complex calculations faster than professors – but I doubt there is much that can be learnt from those to advise others. As for such extreme speed reading and retention of information: this can be understood two ways. It is either just a complete fabrication (the human brain works slowly with 'completely new material' which has to be understood in terms of familiar material, and engaged with through modest learning quanta) – or is trivial. Any good reader could actually 'flip through a 200 page book of completely new material, at high speed for just a few minutes and then give an accurate account of what the book was about' – by focusing on the blurb or an introduction. However, there would be very little knowledge of the book's detailed contents.
I am not sure whether I should be upset or pleased about this invitation. It is always annoying that some people want to cheat, mislead and swindle others. Often the widows of dictators, dying philanthropists, senior bankers or lawyers, or american military personnel seem to have a problem moving vast amounts of money out of some national jurisdiction and offer to make me rich if I help them. They clearly feel I am especially deserving or suitably skilled to undertake such projects. It is hard to have too much sympathy for anyone who is so stupid and greedy that they respond to such approaches.
Here, however, the scammers are playing upon parents who do not want to get rich quick, but just want to help their children learn more effectively and do better in school. I wonder how much money they will be asked to part with to share in the Peak Performance Programme with its surely fraudulent claims? Shame on the scammers. The only positive aspect of this sorry tale is that people consider education and learning important enough for scammers to think they can make a 'fast buck' out of the selling the pedagogic equivalent of snake oil. Perhaps this is not so different form the companies in countries like the UK where so much of professional development in the education sector has become commercialised, with 'providers' selling programmes in 'learning styles' which often have very little evidential support. (There is good research into some models of learning styles – but where popular ideas like VAK work this is likely either placebo, or the focus on multi-model teaching, rather than the underlying model which is more a distortion of multiple intelligence theory than based on the research on student learning styles.)
When I first saw the email I seriously wondered if this was a genuine but misguided or exaggerated attempt to apply genuinely effective learning/study techniques. I was persuaded otherwise by a link in the email that directed me to "one of our students". Actually this was a 'youtube' video of a young boy on a television programme who allegedly could read whilst blindfolded. He struggled to read an autocue whilst blindfolded – although to be fair he struggled equally to read the same autocue before the blindfold was put on. Looking at the video, and in particular how the boy angled his head, I very much suspect he was looking through the fabric of the black eyeshades (in the section of the programme I watched it did not seem to have occurred to the presenter to provide his own blindfold). Even if this was a genuine sensory skill and not the trick it seemed to be, it appeared to have nothing to do with "Accelerated Learning and Brain Development" or Peak Performance International.
One aspect of academic life that has never sat easily with me, is having to be a publicity officer and marketing manager for oneself as a scholar. Not only does this involve keeping good records of everything one has contributed that might conceivably count in seeking a post or promotion and so forth, but making a case for just how important one's work is – its supposedly seminal status, and its inconceivably incredible impact – by seeking out and reporting various indicators. Perhaps it is something about being British, but it is one aspect of the role that I am pleased to be leaving behind.
Presentation is important. Yet, of course, one must retain one's integrity. One might need to display one's contributions in the best possible light, but lying is clearly not acceptable. Unlike on TV's 'The Apprentice' where hopeful future entrepreneurs making up achievements or exaggerating beyond any possible justification in their applications is presented as entertainment – a little naughty, but it shows they are committed and enthusiastic – this would (I assume) clearly be unacceptable in the real world of work. If that is idealistic, it is certainly not okay in the Academy.
A confession
Yet I must confess that for some years it seems I have been padding my publications list with an article that, I now find, may never have been published. Inadvertently, obviously.
But how can a scholar seriously claim they thought they had been published, when, actually, they never were? What possible defence can there be?
But ('your honour') it is true: I found out some days ago that one of my 2012 publications [sic] may not have actually been a publication at all – as it may never have been published. So my publications list may have misrepresented the status of this possibly previously* unpublished work. (*I've just 'published' it myself on the website – but of course that would not count for much in the hiring-and-tenure-and-promotions game.)
So how did this situation develop?
The invitation
On the 8th September 2009 I was invited by an esteemed colleague
As Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopledia of the Sciences of Learning (to be published in 2011 by Springer Publ.) and in accordance with strong recommendations of the editorial advisory board I am wondering if you would be interested in joining the Encyclopedia's list of contributors…If you have the time and inclination, the Editorial Advisory Board and I would very much appreciate your support. If you agree to serve as an author on the topic(s) on molecular conceptions of research into learning
The deadline was in January 21st 2010, and I got the submission completed just before Christmas 2009. I was sent reviewer comments, and completed a revision in June 2010. I assumed all was well.
The article is shown as coded green: Manuscript accepted
However, when I saw in May 2012 that the book was published, my article did not seem to be listed. So I contacted the publisher:
Would you be able to give me an update on the current status of this project. On the project website the contribution I was invited to provide is shown as green (manuscript accepted) [see image above], and according to the Springer site the Encyclopedia is now published. However, I cannot see how to access the material (perhaps my institution does not have access (yet?), or pehraps the on-line version is not yet available?), and I cannot see my contribution (Molecular conceptions of research into learning Regular Entry 00394 894/894) in the downloadable contents. Please could you advise?
The publisher responded: "I can´t find the entry either. This is very strange as it should be there. I will check with the production team and the company that runs the website for us."
The next day came the bad news. Well, given the kinds of things that happen in the world it was only slightly bad, but as publications are seen as so important for academics, and given that I'd done the work, it was pretty disappointing!
I´m terribly sorry to tell you that your article was the only one that has not been received by the production vendor team although we sent it to them. That means that we didn't even had a proof of your article. We didn´t notice that before for which we apologize deeply. For the current printed book Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning it is much too late to get your article in. Please accept my apologies.
A second invitation
But I was offered a partial corrective:
We have developed a new publication platform for our Reference Works that launched in August last year. As the Encyclopedia is part of the Springer Reference Works series it is also published as Online Version …The Encyclopedia on that platform can be seen as a living book as authors and editors can add articles or update old ones at any time….Would you be interested to write/update your article on SpringerReference as part of the electronic/online version of the Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning?
Yes, I would. The next day I was formally invited to write my article, once more:
Thank you very much for taking part in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning…With this e-mail we invite you to SpringerReference.com as author of the following topic(s): Molecular Conceptions of Research into Learning…
At SpringerReference.com, we offer an extremely innovative way of publishing that allows authors to keep articles constantly updated and make their writing efforts immediately visible online. … When the article is complete, simply click 'Submit' to submit your content. By doing so, your contribution will become immediately visible on the site for other users to read and cite–you do not need to wait until the deadline is reached should you have been given one.
The article was (now) due on July 17th, 2012. There were some technical issues using the on-line submission system, but an assistant at the publisher helped sort the problems relating to an image file and cross-links with other contributions. Finally, by the 9th July, the files were uploaded and some formatting issues were sorted, and I was told by the publisher's assistant: "You can confirm it and click on the ACCEPT button".
I did not have access to an accept button, but was able to reply "Thank you – I have clicked the submit button."
Looking back now, I am wondering if perhaps I did need to click on the accept button – except I did not have such a button on my screen. Perhaps the publisher did have an accept button at their end, and the production assistant did not realise that I did not, or had intended to accept the article later and for some reason…
However, as I could see the article on line (see below), I assumed all was well. After all, I had been told that "When the article is complete, simply click 'Submit' to submit your content. By doing so, your contribution will become immediately visible on the site for other users to read and cite…"
The article showed as being part of the on-line Reference collection, with its own DOI
As I am retiring from teaching, I have been building up this website as a central point for various things I've worked on, and have been reviewing the publications I've written over the years (some of which I have no files for, as the manuscripts were typed and submitted in hard copy in those days). When I came to check the current location of this reference article, I could not find it on line, nor indeed any reference to it in a search. Well, that is not absolutely true: I found it was referred to in a list of my publications, but nowhere else. So I reached out to the publisher:
The files were lost (again) in a migration
The publisher could not find my article, nor indeed any record of it.
I'm sorry to say that after scouring our repositories and email we've failed to find your entry "Molecular conceptions of research into learning". Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning was developed on older platforms we decommissioned years ago, and email archives go back only so many years, I am sorry to say. (16th June 2020)
It seems the publisher had decided the original system, a wiki-based platform, did not fully meet their needs, and that something more sophisticated was needed, a "a file- and book-based publishing workflow" that worked better for academic publishing. That is perfectly understandable.
I can also understand that if the publisher had never accepted the submission at their end, then it might be quite possible that the files would be missed completely when the published materials were transferred to a new platform. It seems the files were lost in that process.
A Schrödinger publication?
On the other hand, if it was true that "by [clicking submit], your contribution will become immediately visible on the site for other users to read and cite" then it is not obvious to me why the files were not transferred – unless the transfer was based on a list of the files at the time of the original publication. If that is the case then the "living book [where] authors and editors can add articles or update old ones at any time" died, and reverted to the state of the initial 2012 publication, when the transfer took place.
I am not sure what the moral of this story is. After writing, submitting, and revising an invited article, having the publisher lose it; resubmitting it, a lot of back and forth sorting format issues…it is disappointing to know all that effort may have came to nought.
In retrospect, perhaps when I emailed to say "I have clicked the submit button" I should have written "I have clicked the submit button as I do not have an ACCEPT button, so if an ACCEPT button needs to be clicked please advise, or otherwise confirm no further action is needed at my end". Usually I tend to be pedantic and explicit – and so, I suspect, annoying. Annoyingly, on one of the few occasions I let my guard down, being my usual annoyingly pedantic might have stopped the article being lost a second time.
On the other hand, perhaps my article WAS published on-line in 2012 (when I could access it), but then lost some years later when the resource was transferred to a new platform. That would be a bit like having a chapter in an edited book that has gone out of print (which would not stop an academic including it on a publications list) – except that the only copies of my article which would have survived would have been any downloaded onto individual computers whilst the original platform was live.
Perhaps I should label this a Schrödinger publication – and consider it as an entanglement of two states – ⎮published but no longer available ⎮ / ⎮ accepted for publication but never published ⎮ – as there does not seem to be any observation I can make now which would collapse the wave function.
So I am not not entirely sure if my entry in the encyclopaedia actually never was a real publication (given the publisher has no record of it), or is just not a currently available publication (given that it was submitted according to the instructions that were supposed to make it live immediately). That makes keeping an accurate publications list quite challenging.
I am primarily a qualitative researcher, so do not usually use statistics in my own work. However, I regularly came across references to alpha in manuscripts I was asked to review for journals, and in manuscripts submitted to the journal I was editing myself (i.e., Chemistry Education Research and Practice).
I did not really understand what alpha was, or what is was supposed to demonstrate, or what value was desirable – which made it difficult to evaluate that aspect of a manuscript which was citing the statistic. So, I thought I had better find out more about it.
So, what is Cronbach's alpha?
It is a statistic that tests for internal consistency in scales. It should only be applied to a scale intended to measure a unidimensional factor – something it is assumed can be treated a single underlying variable (perhaps 'confidence in physics learning', 'enjoyment of school science practicals', or 'attitude to genetic medicine').
If someone developed a set of questionnaire items intended to find out, say, how skeptical a person was regarding scientific claims in the news, and administered the items to a sample of people, then alpha would offer a measure of the similarity of the set of items in terms of the patterns of responses from that sample. As the items are meant to be measuring a single underlying factor, they should all elicit similar responses from any individual respondent. If they do, then alpha would approach 1 (its maximum value).
Does alpha not measure reliability?
Often, studies state that alpha is measuring reliability – as internal consistency is sometimes considered a kind of reliability. However, more often in research what we mean by reliability is that repeating the measurements later will give us (much) the same result – and alpha does not tell us about that kind of reliability.
I think there is a kind of metaphorical use of 'reliability' here. The technique derives from an approach used to test equivalence based on dividing the items in a scale into two subsets*, and seeing whether analysis of the two subsets gives comparable results – so one could see if the result from the 'second' measure reliably reproduced that from the 'first' (but of course the ordering of the two calculations is arbitrary, and the two subsets of items were actually administered at the same time as part of a single scale).
* In calculating alpha, all possible splits are taken into account.
Okay, so that's what alpha is – but, still, why carry out a study of the use of this statistic?
In particular studies would often cite alpha for broad features like 'understanding of chemistry' where it seems obvious that we would not expect understanding of pH, understanding of resonance in benzene, understanding of oxidation numbers, and understanding of the mass spectrometer, to be the 'same' thing (or if they are, we could save a lot of time and effort by reducing exams to a single question!)
It was also common for studies using instruments with several different scales to not only quote alpha for each scale (which is appropriate), but to also give an overall alpha for the whole instrument even though it was intended to be multidimensional. So imagine a questionnaire which had a section on enjoyment of physics, another on self-confidence in genetics, and another on attitudes to science-fiction elements in popular television programmes: why would a researcher want to claim there was a high level of internal consistency across what are meant to be such distinct scales?
There was also incredible diversity in how different authors describe different values of alpha they might calculate – so the same value of alpha might be 'acceptable' in one study, 'fairly high' in another, and 'excellent' in a third (see figure 1).
Some authors also suggested that a high value of alpha for an instrument implied it was unidimensional – that all the items were measuring the same things – which is not the case.
But isn't it the number that matters: we want alpha to be as high as possible, and at least 0.7?
Yes, and no. And no, and no.
But the number matters?
Yes of course, but it needs to be interpreted for a reader: not just 'alpha was 0.73'.
But the critical value is 0.7, is that right?
No.
It seems extremely common for authors to assume that they need alpha to reach, or exceed, 0.7 for their scale to be acceptable. But that value seems to be completely arbitrary (and was not what Cronbach was suggesting).
Well, it's a convention, just as p<0.05 is commonly taken as a critical value.
But it is not just like that. Alpha is very sensitive to how many items are included in a scale. If there are only a few items, then a value of, say, 0.6 might well be sensibly judged acceptable. In any case it is nearly always possible to increase alpha by adding more items till you reach 0.7.
But only if the added items genuinely fit for the scale?
Sadly, no.
Adding a few items that are similar to each other, but not really fitting the scale, would usually increase alpha. So adding 'I like Manchester United', 'Manchester United are the best soccer team', and 'Manchester United are great' as items to be responded to in a scale about self-efficacy in science learning would likely increase alpha.
Are you sure: have you tried it?
Well, no. But, as I pointed out above, instruments often contain unrelated scales, and authors would sometimes calculate an overall alpha (the computer found to be greater than that of each of its component scales – at least that would be the implication if it were assumed that a larger alpha means a higher internal consistency without factoring how alpha tends to be larger the more items are included in the calculation.
But still, it is clear that the bigger alpha the better?
Up to a point.
But consider a scale with five items where everybody responds to each item in exactly the same way (not, that is, different people respond in the same way as each other, just whatever response a person gives to one item – e.g., 2 on a scale of 1-7 – they also give to the other items). So alpha should be 1, as high as it can get. But Cronbach would suggest you are wasting researcher and participant effort by having many items if they all elicit the same response. The point of scales having several items is that we assume no one item directly catches perfectly what we are trying to measure. Whether they do or not, there is no point in multiple items that are effectively equivalent.
Was it necessary to survey science education journals to make the point?
I did not originally think so.
My draft manuscript made the argument by drawing on some carefully selected examples of published papers in relation to the different issues I felt needed to be highlighted and discussed. I think the draft manuscript effectively made the point that there were papers getting published in good journals that quoted alpha but seemed to simply assume it demonstrated something (unexplained) to readers, and/or used alpha when their instrument was clearly not meant to be multidimensional, and/or took 0.7 as a definitive cut-off regardless of the number of items concerned, and/or quoted alpha values for overall instruments as well as for the distinct scales as if that added some evidence of instrument quality, or claimed a high value of alpha for an instrument demonstrated it was unidimensional.
So why did you then spend time reviewing examples across four journals over a whole year of publication?
Although I did not think this was necessary, when the paper was reviewed for publication a journal reviewer felt the paper was too anecdotal: that just because a few papers included weak practice, that may not have been especially significant. I think there was also a sense that a paper critiquing a research technique did not fit in the usual categories of study published in the journal, but a study with more empirical content (even if the data were published papers) better fitted the journal.
At that point I could have decided to try and get the paper published elsewhere, but Research in Science Education is a good journal and I wanted the paper in a good science education journal. This took extra work, but satisfied the journal.
I still think the paper would have made a contribution without the survey BUT the extra work did strengthen paper. In retrospect, I am happy that I responded to review comments in that way – as it did actually show just how frequency alpha is used in science education, and the wide variety of practice in reporting the statistic. Peer review is meant to help authors improve their work, and I think it did here.
Has the work had impact?
I think so, but…
The study has been getting a lot of citations, and it is always good to think someone notices a study, given the work it involves. Perhaps a lot of people have genuinely thought about their use of alpha as a result of reading the paper, and perhaps there are papers out their which do a better job of using and reporting alpha as a result of authors reading my study. (I would like to think so.)
However, I have also noticed that a lot of papers citing this study as an authority for using alpha in the reported research are still doing the very things I was criticising, and sometimes directly justifying poor practice by citing my study! These authors either had not actually read the study (but were just looking for something about alpha to cite) or perhaps did not fully appreciate the points made.
Oh well, I think it was Oscar Wilde who said there is only one thing in academic life worse than being miscited…
Thank you for your email message from 'Competent Proofreaders' about the services provided by SPRINGEREDIT (viewpublishers@gmail.com / scrutinyeditors@gmail.com).
I would be interested in learning a little more about exactly what your service entails. I am pretty clear what is involved in 'Proofreading' and 'translating'. But I see you also offer 'correcting for plagiarism'. I wonder if you could tell me a little more about what your service involves here – what I would get for my 40 USD/1000 words?
My understanding is that plagiarism is when an author uses the ideas of another scholar as if their own – without acknowledging the original source. This can be considered not only poor scholarship, but academic malpractice, so I certainly understand why I should be careful to avoid plagiarism in any work I submit for publication. I can therefore see why a service that could correct for plagiarism might be worth investing in, as this could protect scholarly reputation (or in extreme cases, academic employment!)
But I cannot immediately see how you could help me with this. If I asked you to proofread a draft paper, then I know what to expect and I can see that it is very likely that a thorough proofread could technically improve my text. What would you actually do, however, if I submitted a draft paper for 'correcting for plagiarism' – how would you identify any plagiarism (that I might myself not be aware of) and correct it? What exactly would I be paying for?
To the organising committee of the International Congress on Advanced Materials Sciences and Engineering
Keith S. Taber
Dear Eve
Thank you for your kind invitation to be an invited speaker at the International Congress on Advanced Materials Sciences and Engineering (AMSE-2020). It is an honour that such esteemed colleagues as Professors Hans Fecht, Yoon-Bong Hahn, and Subhash C. Singhal, would feel that I can offer something of value to your Congress.
I was very taken that the committee felt that my paper on 'Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems' should be considered to make such 'valuable contributions' that you would like me to speak at your session on 'Materials and Energy'. I am aware that traditionally in scholarly circles, personal speaker invitations of this kind are seen as prestigious and are very much welcomed by those looking to build up a résumé/curriculum vitae.
Of course, I am honoured to be invited as a speaker, and to know that my work on secondary students' understandings of atomic and solar systems is held in such high esteem by your committee. However, I was somewhat surprised that the committee (I assume all busy leading experts in areas of materials science) would even be aware of my work, and frankly I am not sure why this work would justify you inviting me to speak to a congress of materials scientists.
I am sure that AMSE-2020 is intended to be a serious academic conference designed to share experts' cutting-edge research among a specialist field (rather than, say, just generate income for the organisers by signing up anyone who can be sufficiently flattered by a personal invitation) and so your committee must be very careful and highly selective in issuing personal invitations to potential speakers. This would suggest that your committee can appreciate much better than I can why my work would be of sufficient interest to experts in advanced materials science and engineering for them to wish to hear about it first hand.
I imagine that your committee and delegates put a high premium on science education and care very much about the future supply of well qualified young people into science and engineering fields, and it is gratifying to know that they find time to take an interest in educational research. I do wonder, however, if those attending the congress really want to hear about how teenagers make sense of the forces at work within atoms and the solar system rather than about current developments in their own field. Therefore I feel I must decline your kind invitation
Best wishes
Keith
Dear Dr. Keith S. Taber, Hope everything goes well with you. International Congress on Advanced Materials Sciences and Engineering (AMSE-2020) will be held in Hilton Vienna Danube Waterfront, Austria on July 22-25, 2020. On behalf of the Committee, We are writing this time in order not to miss your participation at this congress. Based on your valuable contributions to Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems, we sincerely hope that you can be a speaker at Session 8: Materials and Energy in our congress. …
Thank you very much for your kind personal invitation to deliver a speech at the 4th International Biotechnology Congress (IBC-2020) to be hosted from Dubai, UAE.
I am fine, thank you for asking. I hope you are also well. As you are kind enough to ask after my family, they are well as far as I can tell: we are all isolating here, so I am not currently able to meet them physically. Since my wife died, I have lived alone – though of course I am never socially isolated given such regular personal attention from the wider scholarly community, such as yourself.
Given that "high qualified speakers will be selected from all over the world", I am obviously very honoured to be invited to speak at the International Biotechnology Congress. I certainly appreciate that "the participation of outstanding international experts" gives a conference such as this the potential to make a real contribution to a field.
However, I have looked through the tracks, and I really cannot see how my expertise would fit into any of these. Indeed, I really wonder if my own work qualifies me as a suitable invited speaker (with all the costs this could entail for the organisers) in this particular conference. I am not convinced that the other outstanding international experts in biotechnology will feel I really am actually a highly qualified speaker able to contribute much to inform their work. Of course, if you feel I am being too modest, and that you still do consider that my research and scholarship would be appreciated by the other delegates, then please do get back to me to explain where you feel my work would fit into the programme.
Otherwise, I wish your congress well, but suspect I should focus my energies on activities more closely aligned with my own research.
Best wishes
Keith
The 4th International Biotechnology Congress 2020
Time: Nov. 9-11, 2020
Place: Dubai, UAE
Dear Keith S. Taber,
This is Sophie from organizing committee of The 4th International Biotechnology Congress (IBC-2020). How are you? Hope you and your family are all fine now. We would like to make sure you did not miss our conference invitation! I'm writing to follow-up my previous invitation as below. I sincerely wish you could reply me with your answer about our invitation. Thank you very much.
We are proud to announce that the 4th International Biotechnology Congress (IBC-2020) will be held during Nov. 9-11, 2020 in Dubai, UAE. On behalf of committee, we cordially welcome you to deliver a speech in our conference. …
Thank you for your email message headed "vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal for [sic]" and beginning "Vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal". Thank you for offering to answer all my questions. The introduction to your message initially gave me the impression that you have a vacancy for an editor or a reviewer for some journal – albeit one you were too modest (or embarrassed!) to specify. However, as I read on, it seems that is not the situation?
I learn that you "assist Professors from the United Arab Emirates, China, Viet Nam [sic], Russia to publish their scientific papers in the journals indexed in Scopus database or Web of Science database", and that you work with a "skillful [sic] team" and collectively "control and improve the quality of the papers that [you] receive from the authors" so as to ensure that "only manuscripts with good English language, rich scientific content and appropriate formatting style are sent to the Editors / Publishers by [your] team". So, if I understand correctly, I think you have set yourself up as a kind of intermediary between the authors of scientific papers, and the journals they wish to submit their work to?
You tell me that you "have [sic] already cooperate with good Editors and some well-known publishers". I wonder which publishers these are -would there be some I know and have worked with?
I see that you are looking for new partners and invite me to "publish some good manuscripts from my [i.e., your] side". I thought initially that you wanted me to send you my papers so you could improve them for me. But I think rather you may be asking me to help you publish papers you have already improved for other authors, so they are now good manuscripts. Is that correct?
I am a little unsure about the precise service that you and your team offer. I do certainly recognise that for authors working in English as an additional language, it can be very valuable for someone who is a native English speaker to offer some help with grammar and syntax, although this needs to be done without introducing semantic changes to manuscripts. I think there are already many organisations offering editing and poof-reading services of this kind – although they can only do this accurately when the intended meaning of the text in the original manuscript is entirely clear.
I am intrigued, however, about how you are able to "control and improve the quality of the papers that [you] receive" in terms of "rich scientific content". I would like to learn more about this. Does this mean that your team act as if independent peer-reviewers and advise authors on which manuscripts are likely to be judged suitable for publication by reputable journals? I can see that would be a feasible service, but wonder what one of your client authors would think of your service if your team 'reject' their work as lacking in sufficient quality to be placed in any of the journals that you send the improved manuscripts on to?
Or, alternatively, are your team actually able to help authors by ensuring that manuscripts which lack sufficient "rich scientific content" when submitted to your service are sufficiently improved in quality so they will later be judged as having "rich scientific content" when they are subsequently "sent to the Editors / Publishers by [your] team"? That would be a much more challenging task, and I would be very interested to know how the team can improve the quality of authors' works in that sense without having been intimately involved in the studies being reported.
I look forward to learning more about your team and services.
Best wishes
Keith
Dear
Vacancy for an editor or a reviewer of the journal.
Hope this mail finds you well and in a good heath.
In order to save your time I will try to be concise and brief.
My name is Ksenia.
I assist Professors from the United Arab Emirates, China, Viet Nam, Russia to publish their scientific papers in the journals indexed in Scopus database or Web of Science database.
Together with my skillful team we control and improve the quality of the papers that we receive from the authors.
Only manuscripts with good English language, rich scientific content and appropriate formatting style are sent to the Editors / Publishers by my team (officially to the website of the journal or directly to the editor's mailbox).
We have already cooperate with good Editors and some well-known publishers, but we want to find some more new partners for long fruitful cooperation.
I will be glad if you publish some good manuscripts from my side.
If you are interested in this, please, let me know. I will forward all required information to you and answer all your questions.
Will be happy to hear from you soon.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Sorry for bothering you if you find this letter useless and not interesting for you.
Regards, ...
