ILIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

Level - Doctorate

Syllabus

1. /

Course name

/ Writing for Academic Publication
2. /

Course length

/ 1 semestre(15 weeks)
3. /

Number of Credits

/ 6credits (ECTS)
1 credit = 25 hours; the course = 150 hours
4. /

Distribution of hours

/ 18contact hours
  • Face-to-face - 18 hours
132hours are allocated for self-work and peer-review
  • Mid-term exam - 4 hours
  • Final exam - 2 hours

5. /

Course instructor

/ Maya Rogava, Associate Professor, Doctor of Philology
mobile.: 577 450 516; email:
6. /

Prerequisite

/
  • CEFR B2 level (Upper-Intermediate)
  • Defended Prospectus
  • Students should consider enrolling in the course once they are ready to present their research methods and data analysis

7. /

Course Description and

Study Methods

/ The course is designed to stimulate a journal article writing and peer-review process. Itis divided into three blocks:
Block 1 - Face-to-face input sessions (9 sessions) covering all relevant aspects ranging from scholarly article writing to publishing, including feedback andpeer-review discussions.
Block 2 - Writing processes 1, 2, 3
Block 3 - Peer-review process 1, 2, 3
The course will proceed as follows :
Week 1 - Face-to-face 1 (3 sessions)
Participants meet the course instructor and their peers in interactive, input sessions. The instructor introduces the course and explains its format, requirements and activities planned. The sessions cover all the issues related to
a)scholarly article writing process (e.g. identifying target journals, using a variety of resources);
b)specifics and features of academic writing(e.g. variety of academic styles, ganres, academic vocabulary),
c) scholarly article structure and detailed analysis of Methods, Results and Discussion/Conclusion sections.
By the end of this week, peer-review groups are formed and the procedure is specified.
Weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - Writing Process 1
Participants work on Methods, Results and Discussion/Conclusion sections of their articles, write up their drafts and by the end of Week 6 send them to
a)the instructor and
b)designated reviewers.
Weeks 7, 8 - Peer-review Porcess 1
Peer-reviewers read the drafts and write detailed comments (1 to 2 pages) which by the end of Week 8, they send to
a)the instructor and
b)the author(s).
Week 9- Face-to-face 2 (3 sessions)
Peer-reviewers bring their comments to the sessions, give verbal feedback and discuss with the authors both strong and weak aspects of the draft. The instructor also gives feedback. Input sessions cover:
a)detailed analysis and practical work on the remaining sections of an article (Introduction, Abstract, List of references), as well as
b)selection of Titles, discussion of their relevance, related language and stylistic issues
c)English language issues highlighted in the feedback
By the end of this week, peer-review groups are partially reshuffled (i.e. one reviewer stays the same, the other is new).
Weeks 10, 11, 12 - Writing Process 2
Participants work on Introduction, Abstract, List of References and the Title of their articles, write up the drafts and by the end of Week 12 send them to
a)the instructor and
b)their reviewers.
Weeks 13 - Peer-review Porcess 2
Peer-reviewers read the drafts and write detailed comments (1 to 2 pages) which by the end of the week(Week 13) they send to
a)the instructor and
b)the author(s)
Week 14 - Face-to-face 3 (3 sessions)
Peer-reviewers bring their comments to the sessions, give verbal feedback and discuss with the authors both strong and weak aspects of the draft. The input sessions cover
a)the stages of revision and editing,
b)English language issues identified in the feedback
Week 15 -Writing Process 3
Participants finalise their article drafts. First, they pool together two reviews, the discussion notes made in peer-review sessions andinstructor’s feedback. Then theyrevise and edit their own text, fine-tune the title and elaborate List of References. By the end of Week 15 they send the complete document to
a)their reviewersfor final peer-review and
b)the instructorfor final assessment
Week 16 -Peer-review 3
Reviewers have one week to assess two complete draftsand write up their final reviews (1 to 2 pages)which they send tothe instructor.
Working language - English.
The study methods used are as follows:
  • peer-review
  • writing process
  • brainstorming
  • discussion
  • case studies

8. /

Course aim

/ The purpose of the course is to develop students’ skills to write an academic article that conforms with requirements of field-specific international peer-reviewed journals. The focus of the course is drawn upon both article writing and peer-review processes.
9. /

Topics

/
  • Quality assessment of scientific articles;
  • Quality assessment of academic journals;
  • Publication process;
  • Principles, featuresand specificsof academic writing;
  • IMRAD structureand structural blocks of a scholarly article;
  • Language issues (grammar and vocabulary) related to each block;
  • Arguments, evaluations, causal analysis;
  • Writing critically: arguing and discussing, providing support, drawing conclusions;
  • Working with other people’s ideas: plagiarism, citation, paraphrasing and summarising; synthesizing;
  • Working with feedback, revising and editing.

10. /

Learning objectives and competences

(course-specific and general) / Course-specific competences:
By the end of the course participants will be able to:
  • produce an academic articlethat complies with requirementsof field-specific international peer-reviewed journals;
  • peer-review academic articles according to a set-criteria;
General competences
By the end of the course students will be able to:
  • work in groups, discuss and argue;
  • develop creativity in a writing process;
  • analyse critically a written academic work;
  • plan and organise their own working processes.

11. /

Assessment

/ All written pieces produced by students during the course should fully comply with requirements of academic style/styles identified at the beginning of the course. All pieces submitted to the instructor will be checked on plagiarism. Written pieces containing plagiarism will not be considered for grading while a score for a graded piece will be cancelled.
Assessment system (100 points):
(A)91 - 100 Excellent
(B)81 - 90 Very good
(C)71 - 80 Good
(D)61 - 70 Satisfactory
(E)51 - 60 Pass
(FX) 41 - 50 Failed, but a student has the right to take the exam again.
(F) 0 – 40 Failed, student has to take the course again to get the credit.
Students will be evaluated during the course according to the following assessment components:
1.Draft 1 - 20 points
Participants submit the first draft of Methods, Results, Discussion / Conclusion Sections of their articles, considering the information acquired during the input sessions. The drafts should be written in full conformity with all the aspects of academic style, specific language (grammar and vocabulary) features and structural requirements of the mentioned sections in field-specific international peer-reviewed journals.
2.Draft 2 - 20 points
Participants submit the second draft of Introduction and Abstract, draw up a List of References and choose a title for the draft, considering the information acquired during the input sessions.The drafts should be written in full conformity with all the aspects of academic style, specific language (grammar and vocabulary) features and structural requirements of the mentioned sections and parts in field-specific international peer-reviewed journals.
3.Peer-review 1 /2 -15/15 points
A peer-review has three main functions. The first and most important is that it aims to help the author improve the quality of the draft. The second not less essential function is to demonstrate your ability to provide useful feedback and well thought-through recommendations for making the work better. The third equally critical function is to check the readability of your draft or how well your document conveys the message and communicates your valuable research findings. In any of these cases, reviewers should provide substantive, critical but clearly constructive recommendations identifying the areas where the communication fails or is limited. The review should be done in a narrative form developed in compliance with the guidelines provided. The reviewer should consider the assessment criteria of Content, Language and Style, Structure, and Layout of the draft.
4.Final draft and two final peer-reviews-30 points
The scores for the final assessment are distripbuted among a complete article (15 points) and two peer-reviews (15 points) by the same author.
A complete article should be designed to communicate all the main aspects of conducted research to an expert audiencein a respective field. The value of the submitted work is determined by valid arguments, appropriateness of references as well as the efficiency of communication. The work is expected to meet high standards of international peer-reviewed journals in terms of language, structure and style.
The two reviewes should be developed in accordance with respective guidelines and in close compliance with the assessment criteria (see Appendix#2). They should highlight both strengths and weaknesses of reviewed articles and be constructive in their assessment.
The assessment criteria for each component see in Appendix #2.
12. /

Books and other materials used

/ Essential:
  1. John M. Swales and Christine B. Feak. (2009). Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. University ofMichigan Press.
  2. John J. Ruszkiewicz and JayT. Dolmage. (2012). How to Write Anything. A Guide and Reference.Second edition. Bedfor/St. Martin’s, Boston, New York.
  3. Myra Shulman. (2005). In Focus: Strategies for Academic Writers. University of Michigan Press ELT
Supplementary:
  1. Nancy M. Ackles. (2006). The Grammar Guide. Developing Language Skills for Academic Success. The University of Michigan Press.
  2. Lawrence J. Zwier. (2010). Building Academic Vocabulary. Advanced Practice for EAP Classes and Self-Study. The University of Michigan Press.
  3. Selection of journal articles
  4. Electronic databasis: ScienceDirect, Scopus, Thomson Reuters, ProQuest, EBSCO< Cambridge Journals, Oxford Journals, Emerald, etc.

13. /

Detailed weekly syllabus

/ See, Appendix 1
Knowledge and understanding / Ability to apply knowledge in practice / Ability to make conclusions / Ability to communicate / Ability to learn / Values
X / X / X

Appendix 1

Detailed weekly syllabus

Week / Topics
1 / Three input sessions covering the following:
  • Introduction to the course: syllabus;
  • Quality assessment of scientific articles (good and bad demos);
  • Quality assessment of academic journals (good and bad demos);
  • Publication process: pitfalls and minefields;
  • Principles, features(content, language, layout, structure, style) and specifics of academic writing;
  • Organisation of a scholarly publication: IMRAD structure;
  • Methods section (structure, grammar, vocabulary);
  • Results section (structure, grammar, vocabulary);
  • Data Commentary (graphs, tables charts)
  • Discussion/Conclusion section (structure, grammar, vocabulary);
  • Arguments, evaluations, causal analysis;
  • Writing critically: arguing and discussing, providing support, drawing conclusions;
  • Working with other people’s ideas, ethical writing: plagiarism, citation, paraphrasing and summarising; synthesizing;
  • Establishment of peer-review groups and role of the reviewers;
  • Writing reviews.

2-6 / Writing Process 1: Write up the draft of Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion Sections. By the end of Week 6 send Draft 1(first mid-term assessment) to the instructor and the reviewers
7-8 / Peer-review Process 1: The peer-reviewers read the drafts and produce detailed comments (1 to 2 pages) which they send to the authors and the instructor.
9 / Three peer-review and input sessions covering the following:
  • Feedback from peer-reviewers;
  • Working with feedback;
  • Abstract and key words: structure, grammar and vocabulary;
  • Introduction / Background section: structure, grammar and vocabulary;
  • List of References: style requirements, principles, challenges;
  • Title: good and bad demos, principles, langiage means;
  • English language (grammar and vocabulary) issues raised;
  • Challenges in the writing process experienced.

10-12 / Writing Process 2: Write up Introduction and Abstract. Draw up your List of References and choose a title for your draft. By the end of Week 12 send Draft 2 (second mid-term assessment) to the instructor and the reviewers
13 / Peer-review Process 2: The peer-reviewers read the drafts and produce detailed comments (1 to 2 pages) which they send to the authors and the instructor.
14 / Three peer-review and input sessions covering the following:
  • Feedback from the peer-reviewers;
  • Revising and editing;
  • English language (grammar and vocabulary) issues and questions.

15 / Write the final draft. By the end of Week 15 send it (final assessment) to the instructor and the reviewers.
16 / The peer-reviewrs read the drafts and write up their final reviews (1 to 2 pages) and send them to the instructor for final assessment.

1

Appendix 2

Assessment criteria and forms

Writing Process 1–Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion

Participants submit the first draft of Methods, Results, Discussion / Conclusion Sections of their articles, considering the information acquired during the input sessions. The drafts should be written in full conformity with all the aspects of academic style, specific language (grammar and vocabulary) features and structural requirements of the mentioned sections in field-specific international peer-reviewed journals.

Criteria/Point / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 0
Content / Methodology Section: the author clearly presents the relevant information; fully introduces the
methodologyused; justifies or gives reasons for what was done;
Results Section: the author clearly states the results obtained and compares them with those acquired in other research.
Discussion Section: the author summarises general and/or key results; specifies relationship to existing research; highlights achievement and refines implications. / Methodology Section: the author mostly clearly presents the relevant information, introduces most part of the methodology used; to a large extent justifies or gives reasons for what was done.
Results Section: the author mostly clearly states the results obtained and compares them with those acquired in other research.
Discussion Section: the author mostly clearly summarises general and/or key results; to a large extent specifies relationship to existing research; highlights achievement and refines implications. / Methodology Section: the author presents the relevant information, introduces part of the methodology used; to some extent justifies or gives reasons for what was done.
Results Section: the author states the results obtained and weakly compares them with those acquired in other research.
Discussion Section: the author summarises general and/or key results; weakly specifies relationship to existing research; to some extent highlights achievement and refines implications. / Methodology Section: the author vaguely presents the relevant information, insufficiently introduces the methodology used; barely justifies or gives reasons for what was done.
Results Section: the author insufficiently states the resultsobtained and compares them with those acquired in other research.
Discussion Section: the author vaguely summarises generaland/or key results; mentions relationship to existing research; weakly indicates achievement and tries to refine implications. / Methodology Section: the author presents irrelevant information, introduces unrelated methodology used; does not justify or give reasons for what was done.
Results Section: does not state the results obtained and compare them with those acquired in other research.
Discussion Section: the author does not summarise generaland / or key results; fails to specify relationship to existing research.
Language and style / Academic vocabulary is extensively and accurately used. Correct spelling and punctuation is maintained throughout.
The texts are clear, concise and easy to read; there is a very good balance of long and short sentences. The author effectively avoids redundancy, verbosity and tautologies. Proper level of formality is consistently and effectively maintained. / Academic vocabulary is mostly used with good level of accuracy. Correct spelling and punctuation is mostly maintained.
The texts are mostly clear, concise and easy to read; there is a good balance of long and short sentences. The author mostly avoids redundancy, verbosity and tautologies. Proper level of formality is consistently maintained. / There is a limited but accurate use of academic vocabulary. spelling and punctuation is maintained to some extent.
The texts are sometimes not clear, concise or easy to read; there is a weak balance of long and short sentences. The author avoids redundancy, verbosity and tautologies. Proper level of formality is not always maintained. / Academic vocabulary is rarely used, but when used it is appropriate and accurate. Correct spelling and punctuation is hardly maintained.
Some texts are not clear, concise and easy to read; there is a negative balance of long and short sentences. The author cannot avoid redundancy, verbosity and tautologies. Proper level of formality is rarely maintained. / Academic vocabulary is not used or used inappropriately. Correct spelling and punctuation is not maintained at all.
The texts are not clear, concise and easy to read; there is no balance of long and short sentences. The author fails to avoid redundancy, verbosity and tautologies. Proper level of formality is not maintained.
Structure / All four basic components are in place. The author sequences information and ideas logically and manages all aspects of cohesion well. Paragraphing is sufficiently and appropriately used. / All four basic components are in place. The author logically organizes information, ideas and there is clear progression throughout. A range of cohesive devices is used appropriately though there may be some under or over use / All four basic components are in place. The author arranges information and ideas coherently, and there is a clear overall progression. Cohesive devices are used effectively, but cohesion within and between sentences may be faulty or mechanical. The author may not always use referencing appropriately or clearly. / Some of the four basic components are in place. The author does not organise ideas logically and may use a very limited range of cohesive devices may not indicating a logical relationship between ideas. / Basic components are not in place. The author has very little control of organizational features.
Layout / format / All non-textual as well as textual elements of layout: margin, font size and type, spacing, text alignment and indentation, text citation and references, tables and figures, footnotes are managed accurately and effectively. / Most non-textual as well as textual elements of layout: margin, font size and type, spacing, text alignment and indentation, text citation and references, tables and figures, footnotes are managed accurately and effectively. / Some non-textual as well as textual elements of layout: margin, font size and type, spacing, text alignment and indentation, text citation and references, tables and figures, footnotes are managedaccurately and effectively. / Very few non-textual as well as textual elements of layout: margin, font size and type, spacing, text alignment and indentation, text citation and references, tables and figures, footnotes are managed accurately and effectively. / Non-textual as well as textual elements of layout: margin, font size and type, spacing, text alignment and indentation, text citation and references, tables and figures, footnotes are not managesdaccurately and effectively.
Academic style compliance and plagiarism / The parts fully comply with the selected academic style requirements. There is no plagiarism detected. / The parts mostly comply with the selected academic style requirements. There is no plagiarism detected. / The parts mainly comply with the selected academic style requirements. There is no plagiarism detected. / The parts hardly comply with the selected academic style requirements. There is no plagiarism detected. / The parts do not comply with the selected academic style requirements. There is some plagiarism detected.

Midterm assessment 2 -Introduction, Abstract, List of References, Title