Preparing Your Manuscript: Strong and Ethical Scholarly Writing for Multidisciplinary Audiences

This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors read 10 or more manuscripts per week with pressure to reject 80-90% of them. If the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for writing that are commonly violated in submissions, provide references for additional writing support, cover expectations for language consistent with GSA’s Reframing Aging initiative, and discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.

How to Publish: Guidance From GSA’s Journal Editors

Each year he GSA publications team sponsors a symposium to assist authors who wish to publish in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the editors of The Gerontologist, Innovation and Aging, and the Journals of Gerontology Series A and B plus GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) Preparing your manuscript: strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences, (2) common problems that affect peer review, (3) addressing translational significance and fit to journal expectations, (4) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these round tables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.

PhD Students Learning the Process of Academic Writing: The Role of the Rhetorical Rectangle

PhD students are enculturated into scholarly writing through relationships with their supervisors and other faculty. As part of a doctoral writing group, we explored students’ experiences that affected their writing, both cognitively and affectively, and how these experiences made them feel about themselves as academic writers. Six first and second year doctoral students participated in formal group discussions, using Edward de Bono’s (1985/1992) Six Thinking Hats to guide the discussions. In addition, the students wrote personal narratives about their writing experiences. Data were analyzed according to the rhetorical rectangle of logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Analysis revealed that students were having struggles with their identities as academic writers, not feeling as confident as they had before their programs, and questioning some of the pedagogy of teaching academic writing.

“A question of self-interest”: A brief history of 50 years of international student policy in Canada

This article offers a periodization of the history of international student policy in Canada since 1970. It draws on archival sources at seven public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and Ontario, as well as governmental discussion in both provinces and at the Federal level, and scholarly writing about international students within the Canadian Journal of Higher Education to construct this history. Four key periods are identified: the emergence of differential fee policies in the 1970s; an era of institutional recruitment efforts in the 1980s and 1990s; a period of active government recruitment in the 2000s; and an era of bifurcating priorities as governments expanded their recruitment efforts but scholars began to question the international student project in Canada. The article shows changes in international student policy over the past half-century, but also reveals continuities, most notably a sustained emphasis on serving Canada’s perceived national interests.

When the “Ostjuden” Returned: Linguistic Continuities in German-Language Writing about Eastern European Jews

This article examines the dynamics that allowed the derogatory term “Ostjuden” to reappear in academic writing in post-Holocaust Germany. This article focuses on the period between 1980’s and 2000’s, complementing earlier studies that focused on the emergence of the term “Ostjuden” and on the complex representations of Eastern European Jews in Imperial and later Weimar Germany. It shows that, despite its well-evidenced discriminatory history, the term “Ostjuden” re-appeared in the scholarly writing in German and has also found its way into German-speaking public history and journalism. This article calls for applying the adjectival term “osteuropäische Juden” (Eastern European Jews), using a term that neither essentializes Eastern European Jews nor presents them in an oversimplified and uniform manner.

When the “Ostjuden” Returned: Linguistic Continuities in German-Language Writing about Eastern European Jews

This article examines the dynamics that allowed the derogatory term “Ostjuden” to reappear in academic writing in post-Holocaust Germany. This article focuses on the period between 1980’s and 2000’s, complementing earlier studies that focused on the emergence of the term “Ostjuden” and on the complex representations of Eastern European Jews in Imperial and later Weimar Germany. It shows that, despite its well-evidenced discriminatory history, the term “Ostjuden” re-appeared in the scholarly writing in German and has also found its way into German-speaking public history and journalism. This article calls for applying the adjectival term “osteuropäische Juden” (Eastern European Jews), using a term that neither essentializes Eastern European Jews nor presents them in an oversimplified and uniform manner.