Undergraduate Research Journal Editorial Board Agenda

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

2:00pm, MH 395E

Members in attendance: Margot Reynolds Lagowski, Alison Morrison-Shetlar, Kimberly Schneider, Chelle Becker-Bernstein, Justin Delabar, Joy Shively, Will Crampton, Debbie Hahs-Vaughn, Naim Kapucu, Jane Allgood,

I.  Call to order (MRL)

II.  Announcements and recognition of guests/new board members (JS)

  1. Welcome new Editor, Margot Reynolds Lagowski
  2. Welcome new Intern, Chelle Becker-Bernstein
  3. Welcome new Director of OUR, Dr. Kim Schneider

III.  Old Business/updates (MRL)

  1. New URJ website and image

·  Demonstrate on projector (if in room)

·  At this time, Justin demonstrated the usability of the website. Margot also addressed the issue of the board’s purpose within the URJ infrastructure. The board should: provide feedback on URJ processes and procedures, assist in finding new reviewers, suggest revisions to current systems, and act as liaisons between the URJ and their departments.

  1. New promotional materials

·  The URJ has received or will receive highlighter-pens, business cards, poster-size flyers, and a tri-fold display.

  1. Events – previous and upcoming

·  Lots of interest at the Welcome Expo on the 23rd: more than 80 students signed up to indicate they were interested in undergraduate research.

·  Workshops will be held this fall – the first is on October 10th.

·  Alison Morrison-Shetlar discussed her efforts to create a non-credit-bearing course for students doing research with faculty members. This would provide documentation for students participating in research as yet “unofficially.”

  1. URJ Efficacy and Comparison Studies (JS, MRL)

·  Efficacy study designed to gather student feedback on ways to improve the URJ

·  This study will be conducted by Joy – three types of surveys will be distributed to UCF students who: have submitted to the URJ, have attended a URJ workshop, or who have attended UCF events where the URJ is represented. The study will gauge student opinions of the URJ and what can be improved from the student point of view.

·  Comparison study designed to evaluate undergraduate research journals nationwide, and determine what works/doesn’t work

·  This study will be conducted by Margot – standard evaluations of URJs nationwide will determine what are the best practices and most avoidable missteps in operating a beneficial collegiate student research journal. This will include copyright policies and scope of fields published.

IV.  Growing Pains (MRL)

  1. Copyright difficulties
  2. Most other journals require original research, so how do we encourage students to submit if their work is then “stuck” to the URJ and cannot be submitted elsewhere? Suggestions made during the meeting included:

·  Considering student publication an “announcement” of research to be published elsewhere.

·  Student could possibly publish in the URJ and later replace it with a link to the URL of subsequent accepting journal.

·  Contact other journals to see how they handle the problem (i.e. Margot’s study).

  1. Procedural precedent for Volumes/Issues
  2. Still maintaining a rolling deadline; as soon as a manuscript is received, we aim to determine quickly if it is of publishable quality and send it to the copy editor to be put on the site.
  3. How many issues per year/per volume has yet to be determined.

V.  Manuscripts – Overview (JS)

  1. # of manuscripts currently in the review process: 11
  2. # of manuscripts completed since the last meeting: 7
  3. Reviewers needed in the following fields: English (3), Nursing, Mechanical/Civil Engineering, Forensic Anthropology, Political Science
  4. After hearing the titles of the submitted papers, the following faculty members were suggested: Tracy Dietz, Stacy Dunn, Michael Georgiopoulos, Barry Fookes, and Bernadette Jungblut.
  5. It was also determined by the board that retired/former faculty could also be eligible and qualified reviewers. Whether or not PhD students could be eligible reviewers as well will be determined at a later meeting.
  6. New Manuscript Management System in development (MRL)
  7. Margot explained that she is developing a 5-step program for student submissions which would require feedback from the faculty mentor and UWC prior to submitting. The 5 steps were discussed by the members, and a revised version will be presented sometime soon.
  8. It was suggested that faculty mentors/students submitting should be required to list at least two potential reviewers before the manuscript can enter the review process. By making the publication forms online, the page could refuse to accept until all fields are filled in (including suggested reviewers).
  9. By making the “road to submissions” more rigorous, the manuscripts will be of a higher caliber before they reach the reviewer, and the reviewer can focus on the true content of the paper.

VI.  Faculty review process – revisions (JS, CBB)

  1. Reviewer interest form: can be completed online, more detailed than in the past.
  2. The quandary was discussed that truly exceptional research is recommended for submission to professional (“real”) journals, so what does the URJ get left with?
  3. It was also agreed that valid and well-conducted research without the groundbreaking results is still research, and a hypothesis proved wrong is still a finding; therefore, papers with this content, properly conducted, are still eligible to be submitted.
  4. Database of reviewers can then be maintained online
  5. Universalizing expectations for reviewers: more detailed review form, online examples, rubric, etc. Suggestions?
  6. Margot explained the new version of the faculty review form, much more detailed than the previous version. The URJ will request that faculty provide substantive comments using the track changes function in MS Word.
  7. It was suggested that the required subcategories on the form be eliminated or simplified, by leaving them as prompts and allowing the reviewer to choose the most relevant categories to comment upon.

VII.  Workshops (in conjunction with UWC)

  1. Materials (multimedia, workbooks) will be revised and updated
  2. Spring 08 goal: 1 workshop in the afternoon, 1 in the evening, 1 on WebCT
  3. Additional workshops for BHC, RAMP, McNair, OUR as requested

VIII.  Other Business