# An introduction on publishing on our skills and training initiatives

:::success
**Aim:** to introduce manuscripts as one potential route to impact and dissemination of our skills and training initiatives.

**Duration:** ~20 minutes with lots of interactivity
:::

:::info
**Join Zoom Meeting**
https://turing-uk.zoom.us/j/94849156073?pwd=bFFBUW9yaVdqcE1NODExMWpwdXh3QT09

**Meeting ID**: 948 4915 6073
**Passcode**: 414751
:::

---

| Duration | Activity |
| ---- | -------- |
| Start | 👋 Welcome |
| 2 mins | [:open_book: Types of dissemination](#-Types-of-dissemination) |
| 2 mins | [:black_nib: What are the benefits of publishing on your work?](#-What-are-the-benefits-of-publishing-on-your-work) |
| 2 mins | [What should we think about when we are designing/running our interventions?](#What-should-we-think-about-when-we-are-designingrunning-our-interventions) |
| 2 mins | [:japanese_castle: Types of Venues](#-Types-of-Venues) |
| 2 mins | [How do we pick the right ‘venue’ for the piece of work?](#How-do-we-pick-the-right-‘venue’-for-the-piece-of-work) |
| 2 mins | [:brain: What support would the team find helpful?](#-What-support-would-the-team-find-helpful) |
| 12 mins | [:wave: Who's in?!](#-Who’s-in) |
| | Actions and Next Steps |
| | [Questions](#Any-questions) |

## :open_book: Types of dissemination
:::warning
**Activity (2 mins or until the popcorn stops popping):** What types of 'dissemination' can you think of?
:::

- Blog posts
- Voxpops on Youtube
- Open source training materials on Github
- Case studies
- Poster presentations
- JM: Praxis Auriel Award, plus other similar type recognition awards
- BN: Guidebook/public guide/notebook for general public, policy briefing, consultation submission, event info (schedule, agenda, minutes), whitepaper, report, website/dynamic site signposting to resources, media assets
- informal announcements on social media
- learner profiling to inspire others / case studies
- Fortnightly digests/round-ups
- landscape mapping / compare and contrast between similar initiatives
- White Papers
- socials
- Instagram reels
- Podcasts
- TIKTOKs

<!-- :::warning
Now place these in order of 'effort' and/or stage.
:::

| Low Effort, Early Stage | Low Effort, Later Stage |
| -------- | -------- |
| | |
| | |
| | |

| High Effort, Early Stage | High Effort, Later Stage |
| -------- | -------- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
-->
---

## :black_nib: What are the benefits of publishing on your work?
:::warning
**Activity (2 mins or until the popcorn stops popping):** Take two minutes to jot down your ideas on the benefits of publishing on your work.
:::

- transparency (in light of using mainly public funding) and attract more funding
- attract new talent by inspiring others with the current activity
- Building comms activity through initiatives not just an afterthought along with evaluative activity
- Spot where comms are waffly and need to be refined. This might not be a person-quirk but something to tighten up in project design and comms.
- Open source to elicit feedback on our activities and to improve them for all actors
- Identify links with other initiatives
- New opportunity to practise written communication for varied audiences (ProfDev)
- Exposure of your project more widely - potential to expand community
- Let participants share stories written about the programmes they took part in
- Taking a bit of control over official comms, which sometimes are too restricted
- Ability to articulate the recommendations/lessons learned from the project/programme.
- Have something to refer to/map the progress of the project over iterations.
- Form solid basis for funding applications. Also think there is an element of elitism and accessibility w/ publishing depending on how it is disseminated?
---

## What should we think about when we are designing/running our interventions?
- How does our approach differ from approaches tried before? This can be around the target audience, the context, the mode of delivery, etc.
- What 'critical assumptions' might we be testing with the
- What would we like to be able to demonstrate (or disprove) by the end of the initiative?
- How will we capture quantitative and qualitative feedback from our participants?
- What **artefacts** are we able to make available alongside a publication? E.g. open source curriculum materials to support their uptake elsewhere, educator-facing handbooks.
- Are there opportunities to co-author with participants and/or other stakeholders?

---

## What types of articles?
Adapted from https://sigcse2023.sigcse.org/track/sigcse-ts-2023-papers
- **Computing Education Research.** The primary purpose of Computing Education Research (CER) papers is to **advance what is known about the teaching and learning of computing**. CER papers are reviewed relative to the clarity of the research questions posed, the relevance of the work in light of prior literature and theory, the soundness of the methods to address the questions posed, and the overall contribution. Both qualitative and quantitative research is welcomed, as are replication studies and papers that present null or negative results.
- **Experience Reports and Tools.** The primary purpose of Experience Reports and Tools (ERT) papers is observational in nature, and ERT papers should **carefully describe the development and use of a computing education approach or tool**, the context of its use including the formative data collected, and **provide a rich reflection on what did or didn’t work**, and why. ERT contributions should be motivated by prior literature and should highlight the novelty of the experience or tool presented. ERT papers differ from CER papers in that they frame their contributions to enable adoption by other practitioners, rather than focusing on the generalizability or transferability of findings, or threats to validity.
- **Position and Curricula Initiative.** The primary purpose of Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI) papers is to present a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to **curriculum or program design**, **practical and social issues facing computing educators**, and **critiques of existing practices**. PCI papers should substantiate their claims using evidence in the form of thorough literature reviews, analysis of secondary data collected by others, or another appropriate rhetorical approach. In contrast to CER papers, PCI papers need not present original data or adhere to typical qualitative or quantitative research methods. PCI papers differ from ERT papers in that they do not necessarily report on individual experiences, programs or tools, but rather they may focus on broader concerns to the community.

---

## :japanese_castle: Types of Venues
- Conferences
- [ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium 2023](https://sigcse2023.sigcse.org/)
- Flagship annual conference.
- Forshaw, Matthew, et al. "Meeting graduate employability needs through open-source collaboration with industry." Proceedings of the *47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education*. 2016. [(link)](https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/218071/1EAAC431-14DE-4C3C-ACFE-55B2787970C4.pdf)
- [ACM ITiCSE](https://iticse.acm.org/2023/)
- An increased emphasis on 'tools'.
- McGee, Oonagh, et al. "Out of the Comfort Zone: Embedding Entrepreneurship in a Cohort of Computer Science Doctoral Students." *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education*. 2016. [(link)](https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/236011/75521A6F-2870-428C-B7AF-B6390C698640.pdf)
- Journals
- [Journal of Open Source Education](https://jose.theoj.org/)
- Hart, Bernard, et al. "Neuromatch Academy: a 3-week, online summer school in computational neuroscience." Journal of Open Source Education 5.49 (2022). [(link)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/jose.00118)
- Paper Reviewing takes place in public in Github e.g. [(link)](https://github.com/openjournals/jose-reviews/issues/118)
- PLOS
- Gurwitz, Kim T., et al. "Designing a course model for distance-based online bioinformatics training in Africa: the H3ABioNet experience." *PLoS computational biology* 13.10 (2017): e1005715. [(link)](https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005715)
- Other Activities
- ITiCSE Working groups
- Think of this as a DSG for Education Research :smiley_cat:
> An ITiCSE working group is an intense collaboration between five to ten researchers from around the world to produce a high-value report on a topic of interest in computing education.

If you are not familiar with the **publication** and **peer review processes**, you may find this short article helpful:

- Ali, Parveen Azam, and Roger Watson. "[Peer review and the publication process.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050543/)" *Nursing open* 3.4 (2016): 193-202.

---

## How do we pick the right 'venue' for the piece of work?
- Which venue poses the lowest barrier of access (e.g. open source vs behind a 'paywall')?
- Which venues reach the communities we would like to learn from our experiences?
- Which venues have a track record of positively receiving this type of work?
- Try to sniff out -- and subsequently steer well clear of -- [*predatory*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_conference) venues
- 'Prestige' is difficult to measure; a decent rule of thumb is to target venues which consistently publish work you respect and find interesting.
- Familiarise yourself with the Turing's policies around publication.
- **[Open Publication of Research Outputs Policy Statement](https://mathison.turing.ac.uk/Interact/Pages/Content/Document.aspx?id=2239):** This Policy Statement sets out the Turing’s approach to open publication of research it is involved with and the relevant considerations that should be taken into account when considering publishing research outputs openly.
- [**Open Access Policy:**](https://mathison.turing.ac.uk/Interact/Pages/Content/Document.aspx?id=2363) Read about the UKRI's Open Access Policy, and how it applies to researchers at the Turing.
- [**Open publication of research outputs: policy statement:**](https://www.turing.ac.uk/open-publication-research-outputs-policy-statement) A publicly-available policy statement which you can refer external parties (e.g. publishers, co-authors) towards.

:::warning
If you can think of any other guiding principles, please add them above.
:::

---

## :brain: What support would the team find helpful?

:::warning
Question: What support would you find helpful?
:::

- **Reading groups?** Getting together as a team to read existing publications to a) learn about good practice taking place elsehwere, b) reflect on what works well in these publications.
- **Training?** on, for example, *action research* :+1:
- **1:1 support?** for generating ideas and reviewing drafts. :+1:
- **Coworking calls?** to carve out times in our busy chedules to focus on writing. :+1:
- Others?

---

## :wave: Who's in?!

:::warning
Question: Who is interested, and are there ideas you would like to put forward?
:::

- Matt!
- I would love to, but i'm leaving :( - Andrea
- Harriet - need a bit more thought about how this could be valuable to and for AcProgs
- Mishka - something alongside course development collaborations and course sustainability
- Bridget
- Jules + the neewbies - having started with text for dissemination on the how to for DSG
- Anna

---

## Actions and Next Steps
- **All** to consider what [support would be helpful](#-What-support-would-the-team-find-helpful).
- **All** to [add your name](#-Who’s-in) if you would like to know more.
- **MF** to take feedback forward and schedule session(s) in the fall to follow-up.
- **All** If you would like to discuss further, please get in touch at [e-mail] or via Teams.

## Any questions?
If you have any questions, please drop these below and I'll cover as many as possible.

-
-
-
-
-