Normalizing Rejection

Getting turned down for grant funding or having a manuscript rejected is an uncomfortable but not unusual occurrence during the course of a nurse researcher’s professional life. Rejection can evoke an emotional response akin to the grieving process that can slow or even undermine productivity. Only by “normalizing” rejection, that is, by accepting it as an integral part of the scientific process, can researchers more quickly overcome negative emotions and instead use rejection to refine and advance their scientific programs. This article provides practical advice for coming to emotional terms with rejection and delineates methods for working constructively to address reviewer comments

Know Your Audience: Middlebrow aesthetic and literary positioning in the fiction of P.G. Wodehouse

This essay strives to explain Wodehouse’s status as a popular writer, whose work is read with enjoyment by academics, critics and the general reader alike, as resulting from his particular positioning within the literary field, scrutinizing his relationship to both popular commercial fiction and avant-garde literary output. It argues that Wodehouse as a writer of enduring popularity and yet non-canonical status fits in with a range of critical discourses of the middlebrow, both modern and contemporary

The role of refereed journals in integrating theory, research, and practice

Accepted manuscrip

Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia

A survey was conducted among editors of journals publishing in the field of chemistry, chemical technology and related topics in Serbia, aiming to collect information on their experience, problems and difficulties during peer-review process. Editors from 22 journals out of 27 that regularly published during 2015 replied. General data on journals were collected from responses obtained from editors-in-chief, whereas all editors (including sub-editors and section editors) participated in a questionnaire concerning peer-review procedure. Additionally, they were asked to evaluate quality of reports and attitude of reviewers, discuss present situation and suggest measures to improve peer-review process. The greatest problems encountered by editors in peer-review process can be summarized as follows: low rate of acceptance to review, low quality of reports, sometimes due to the reviewer's bias or their inability to properly understand the review process. A method used to search for reviewers does not substantially influence the quality of reports. Editors agree that introduction of On-Line processes and creation of precise instructions for reviewers, education of potential reviewers, as well as social, public and professional recognition and appreciation of reviewers' work, are the most important measures to improve the quality of the peer-review process and, consecutively, the quality of published articles and journals

Sustainability Indicators Past and Present: What Next?

This paper discusses the current state of thought amongst the Sustainability Indicator (SI) community, what has been achieved and where we are succeeding and failing. Recent years have witnessed the rise of “alternative facts” and “fake news” and this paper discusses how SIs fit into this maelstrom, especially as they are themselves designed to encapsulate complexity into condensed signals and it has long been known that SIs can be selectively used to support polarized sides of a debate. This paper draws from chapters in a new edited volume, the “Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators and Indices”, edited by the authors. The book has 34 chapters written by a total of 59 SI experts from a wide range of backgrounds, and attempts to provide a picture of the past and present, strengths and weaknesses of SI development today. This paper is an “analysis of those analyses”—a mindful reflection on reflection, and an assessment of the malign and benign forces at work in 2018 within the SI arena. Finally, we seek to identify where SIs may be going over the coming, unpredictable years

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship