egp banner

‘Getting Your Food Systems Research Published’ – webinar Q&A follow up responses

British Food Journal

This webinar was hosted by Emerald Publishing in collaboration with Professor Sonal Choudhary, University of York Management School, on behalf of the STFC Food Network+.
Presenters: 

These are some of the questions we didn’t get time to answer live in the webinar, but that the editors and publishers have provided some retrospective responses for:

What are your tips for conducting a good theoretical discussion when the reviewers comment that there's "untapped potential of theory”?

Editor response (LM): This is a really difficult question to answer when there is a lack of context so the response is going to be quite broad. There are two elements of the manuscript where this comment could apply. Firstly the theoretical framing of the study and depending on whether this is a grounded or a deductive study then the theoretical framework or literature review (positioning) section will need to have a discursive narrative around the existing literature and evidence base especially the research gap that is evident and which the study seeks to address.

Secondly, depending on the type of research the discussion/analysis of the results/findings needs to be triangulated with existing theory or literature to be able to demonstrate the contribution of the paper to support existing theory, to contest current thinking and/or to provide new insights. 

Editor response (SH): Authors should use a paragraph or two to deepen the dialogue with the theory(ies) used: how the study challenges or refines existing theory? What are the boundaries of the theory’s applicability? Usually, in interdisciplinary studies, the bets is to integrate more than 1 theory which can yield richer insights and avoid such comments from the reviewers. 

At the end, reviewers want to see how theory shapes your research questions, methods, analysis, and conclusions, not just sitting in the introduction or briefly in the methodology. 

What is your view (all of the editors) on the increasing use of AI for structuring/writing/analysing in manuscripts? Is this a step forward or a step back for authors' integrity/skills?

Editor response (DL): The reality is that AI is here, not just arriving. What we need to do is to ensure that this “tool” is used as part of the critical thinking applied to research and not simply used as “copy and paste”. A recent discussion across the Editorial of the journal emphasised the need for academics and authors to recognise that they have both ownership and reputation invested in their work and this is a vital aspect of their personal brand. 

Transparent use and of AI and its articulation as a tool must be evident along with justification for its’ use too. The reality is that ethical policy is lagging along with potentially a comprehensive discourse of the “methodology of use” aspect, which I’m sure will follow.

In short, we must all be vigilant and recognise to my earlier point the use of AI must be owned, transparent and ethical as the long-term reputation and standing of scholars individually and collectively are at stake at this juncture.

Editor response (LM): There are emerging methodologies, or indeed current data analysis tools such as NVivo that are combining AI elements within the tools. It is important that researchers are clear in their methodology how they may have used AI, which forms they have used and how research integrity has been maintained.

Editor response (SH): AI is rapidly transforming scientific research across disciplines, and it definitely opens up new ways to understand complex systems. The publisher response confirms that the use of AI is permissible or not based on how it was used in the study (not permissible in analysis of results or generating results but could be in formatting the content or correcting the English). However, I believe that all authors nowadays are using AI in Natural Language Processing-NLP, for instance to summarize literature, extract key findings, and even generate hypotheses by reading and analysing thousands of research papers by using ChatGPT, semantic scholar, etc. Is this considered permissible and to what extent? Indeed, there is a need for a clear statement about the use of AI in research studies, authors’ acknowledgement of such use in details in their manuscript, and use of specific software or program for verification/detection.

Publisher response: Our author guidelines state the below about AI use in terms of submissions for our journals:

Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity. 

  • The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
  • The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
  • Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
  • The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.
What makes qualitative research "good enough" for being published?

Editor response (LM): This is a difficult question to answer as there are so many forms and approaches to qualitative research. I would say – there must be a clear research gap or research question that is being addressed. The gap or the question must be worth answering and in doing so the research can then be demonstrated to be novel or make a contribution. The method must be appropriate and any limitations clearly explained in terms of representativeness or weaknesses in the sample dataset and how this influences generalisability of results. Important questions that could be asked are:

  • How was ethical approval sought? How was the methodology validated/piloted?
  • How has data saturation been reached?
  • How has data richness been assured?
  • In what ways do the findings inform new thinking, new policy etc.

Additional points from DL and SH:

  • Define the impact
  • What’s the application to practitioners?
  • How it shapes and informs future research and why
  • Everything depends on the type of study: review, systematic review, research article, etc. Based on the type of study, authors should work the methodology and this is what makes any study (qualitative or quantitative) good enough for publication
  • If the methodology is robust, then results are valid and discussion is rich, and the impact (practical or theoretical) will be guaranteed.

Hope this helps. 

Do you still see barriers to publishing in interdisciplinary journals, because of impact factors, prestige etc.?

Editor response (SH): Barriers do exist when it comes to publishing in interdisciplinary journals, even though there's growing recognition of their importance but some opportunities are emerging too. For instance, Open access and digital-first journals are changing the game, allowing for more agile publication models to consider while choosing the journal for publication. Besides, some funders (like NIH, and Horizon Europe) are increasingly prioritizing interdisciplinary approaches. Finally, new metrics are being more explored nowadays and could help indirectly to cite the research such as altmetrics, societal impact, and real-world application.

Editor response (DL): Clarity of scope and approach to the interdisciplinary approach and how the disciplines are intended to compliment and be additive to provide more informed outcomes. This may also include the rationale for selection of authors where mixed methods are being applied that may be novel to one field but not another and the  mode of interpretation and application to support readers and reviewers collectively. 

Editor response (LM): Excellent published research will always get cited and many journals are seeing a significant uplift in their impact factors and as a result their prestige. Publishing papers that demonstrate not only excellent research but also clear impact/implications for research, policy and industry or that evidence an excellent research environment will all have value to the authors and their institutions. The bigger barrier for me is the style of writing in interdisciplinary journals and how authors adapt to this.

With the hype around 'predatory journals', how do interdisciplinary ECRs navigate this complex space of where to publish?

Publisher response: Spend some time evaluating the journal that you plan to submit to. Is the publisher legitimate, check the peer-review process, evaluate the editorial board, look at where the journal is abstracted and indexed and beware in particular of any journals asking for payment upon submission. The following online sources may be helpful:

I’m working as a freelance researcher, with no affiliation to a University. Do I need to find an academic to work with in order to get published (in a similar way as one would approach an academic to be a supervisor for a PhD)?

Publisher response: It’s not necessary for an author to have an academic affiliation in order to publish in one of our journals. However, a newer author may find it beneficial to co-author with a more experienced author to help them to navigate the submissions process.

If they don’t already have one authors will need to register for an ORCID ID as part of the article submission process. This ID allows authors to store a record of and links to research and publishing activities. More information is available here: ORCID for Researchers - ORCID

Editor response (SH): More journals are recognizing the value of community-engaged, independent researchers, and non-traditional researchers, especially if the work is rigorous, theoretically grounded, and clearly communicated, it can absolutely get published without a university attached to the freelance researcher’s name.

But, working with an academic might help to strengthen perceived legitimacy (especially for reviewers/publishers who are not familiar with freelance researchers), and to access literature, data, and research infrastructure. Therefore, it allows the collaboration across strengths such as the freelancer researcher brings real-world- expertise and the affiliated academic brings institutional influence. 

Should a researcher approach one journal at a time, or canvas multiple suitable journals en masse?

Publisher response: In line with Emerald Publishing’s research and publishing ethics guidance, (and best practice in academic publishing) your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication at the point of being submitted to one of our journals. It is recommended that authors read our research and publishing ethics guidelines in full to help to avoid the most common publishing ethics issues. 

 

Any questions or follow up information can be directed to the webinar hosts:

Jo Jones, Publishing Development Manager for Responsible Management, Emerald Publishing

Jo Sharrocks, Senior Commissioning Editor for Journals, Emerald Publishing