ARNA Conference Proceedings Editorial Team

Introduction


ARNA Proceedings Editorial Team welcomes you to our space!

We have created this website in the spirit of openness, transparency, and engagement.


This page provides you with information about our team; proceeding submission and publication guidelines, and a link to the ARNA Conference Proceedings publication website.


We welcome your shared thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. Please use the comments section to keep in touch.



¡El Equipo Editorial de ARNA le da la bienvenida a nuestro sitio web!

Hemos creado este sitio en el espíritu de apertura, transparencia y participación.


Esta página comparta información acerca de nuestro equipo; presentaciones; normas de publicación, y un enlace a la página web de la publicación de la Conferencia de ARNA.


Damos la bienvenida a tus pensamientos, ideas y sugerencias. Utilice la sección de comentarios para mantenerse en contacto.



    Who we are and what we do

   Submission guidelines, due dates, manuscript types and requirements

ARNA Proceedings
    Conference Proceedings publication Website


September 11, 2015

posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:26 PM by Jamie Hill


August 18, 2015

posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:21 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Team Conference Call 

 

Date:August 18, 2015 

 

Time:2:30 – 3:30 pm (Eastern) via Skype; Tara will initiate our call 

 

Present:Elena (leading), Tara (notes), Nathalis, Heather 

Regrets:Nathan, Jamie (not available until after Sept. 1)  


----- 

 

AGENDA/ DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 

 

THANK YOU to Tara and Heather for developing a template. 

THANK YOU to Nathan for keeping our community informed. 

MANY and SPECIAL THANKS to everyone for all your commitment to our community and our work! 
 

 

  1. ARNA Coordinating Group meeting update –  3 minutes (elena) 

Coordinating group meeting Sept. 8. No suggestions/additions from the Proceedings team at this time.  

 

  1. ARNA 2015 Conference Proceedings contributing authors/submissions – 20 minutes  

  1. Author database: most recent document titled “ARNA Proceedings Author database Aug 10 15” is available under the folder link 2015 ISSUE –> Authors_database   

 

ARNA Proceedings_Author_database_Aug_18_15 

  • records communication with authors 

  • complete record of who declined and who agreed to submit etc. 

  • Elena will clean the document and only keep the authors with whom we will be working  

 

Organization of dropbox: Organized by language (Eng/Span) then by type of submission 

 

(b) Submission summary: in the same folder please refer to the document titled “PRESENTATION SUMMARY” 

(c) Extended due date to August 15th 

(d) 2015 Conference Proceedings Important Dates_Actions schedule 

(d) newly created Google based document titled “2015 Conference Proceedings Member Notes Reflection” (a copy is available under our today’s call meeting folder) 

 

  1. Review Process –  30-40 minutes  

 

  • CRITERIA: 

In reference to this 2015 Proceedings Guidelines (this document is available under our today call meeting folder): 

  1. Editorial Team Screening rubric – everyone 

  1. Manuscript Review Criteria - Nathalis 

 

  • REVIEWERS: 

  1. update about reviewers (listing)  elena 

  1. discuss process to use - everyone  

 

Submissions:  

9 individual submissions 

4 posters 

2 symposiums 

1 town hall submission 

3 workshops 

TOTAL: 19 English submissions 

 

Spanish: 2 individual papers and 1 symposium  

 

2 submissions from Lonnie still coming towards the end of the month, asked for extension to close to end of the month (they are very busy with the handbook). This will interfere slightly with our review process, but we can accommodate.  

 

Several authors required extensions 

 

Reflection by elena: even sharing the guidelines, posting and sharing during conference, many submissions did not follow the guidelines. One author chose not to submit an abstract for poster and elena had to provide a rationale for why the abstract was required. Some issues elena has already worked through, but some have been left for this first screening. We are a little bit behind on the important dates. Planning the review process will be impacted, since this year we have two steps – first screening, then review process. When we look at dates and action items we certainly could not have done initial screening and provided authors with that initial feedback by this time.  

 

Decision to focus on process first, to get a good sense of that, then look at timelines.  

Changes in process: last year elena did all communication with authors, this year that will be different (managing editor will be responsible for communication). 

 

The timelines have already been shared with authors and reviewers, so any changes also need to be communicated.  

 

Current proposal (review process): 

We will divide submissions among ourselves, and each take responsibility for assigned submissions (responsible for communications with that set of authors as well as the reviewers). Communication with each author as we proposed at the beginning, will be informing the author that the submission meets the general guidelines and will be entered into the review process. Then we will be responsible to communicate with the reviewers. Participating in review of the manuscripts: each manuscript is reviewed by the managing editor (one of us) and the external reviewer. Then managing editor will be compiling all of this feedback and communicating with author. If there is a disagreement between the review decisions (e.g., one says reject, one says accept with revisions), then it will need to be reviewed by a 3rd editor (without informing them of the 2 previous decisions), and the 3rd editor will do an independent review.  

 

NEED TO: 

  1. divide the submissions 

  1. finalize the review criteria   

Nathalis worked on the Suggested Manuscript Review Criteria ARNA_Nathalis”, elena is going to integrate these ideas into our template for review:  
2014 ARNA Proceedings Review Template_English_docx 

We want to try to keep consistent as possible between last year and this year in terms of review criteria while incorporating more details/support from Nathalis’ work on this 

 

Spanish manuscripts will go to Nathalis 

Remaining English manuscripts will be divided (9-11 manuscripts) between elena, Heather, Tara and Nathan 

Heather will divide among editorial team and communicate this to team 

 

Heather will revise some dates in the schedule (“2015 Conference Proceedings Submission_Important Dates_Actions_tentative”) according to what is realistic and Tara will review and make changes (both Heather and Tara have conflicts and overloaded schedules right now, realistically will not be able to start the review process right now, so there is a need on our team to move the timelines back) 


Elena will send some potential dates for next meeting following Sept. 7  

END OF MEETING 


AGENDA ITMES WE DID NOT GET TO:  

 

  1. ARNA Proceedings workgroup space on the ARNA Connect – 20 minutes 

(a) update and organize our space, Spanish (?) 

(b) maintain regular communication with the ARNA community by posting updates 

  

  1. Other items to be discussed (?): Please feel free to suggest additional items. 


  1. Next meeting - determine 

 

ACTION ITEMS: 

Elena: 

  1. contact ISSN office to ensure we do not need to re-apply for ISSN; 

  1. finalize ARNA Proceedings outline: respond to Lonnie’s comments and finalize; 

  1. communicate with Miguel about the review process and translation; 

June 19, 2015

posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:17 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Team Conference Call 

Date: June 19, 2015 

 

Time: 4pm-5:10pm  


Present: Elena (leading), Tara (notes), Heather, Nathalis  

Regrets: Nathan  

 

----- 

 

AGENDA/ DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: 

  1. ARNA proposal submission extended due date, communication with the presenters/authors  - elena 

  1. Aug. 1 extended deadline – agreed 

  1. Elena has prepared the author communication/email after getting feedback from everyone, will update with respect to template (once we have update on status and when it will be ready) 

  1. Submission guidelines are updated with the submission extended due date and this will go to authors in the email 

  1. Action item: elena will send email after this call and in a few days will post an announcement on ARNA connect re: extended due date 

  1. Shelley has sent updated list of presenters at ARNA 2015  

  1. Elena will set up a data base (use the list of presenters to set up a spreadsheet to track status of communications and drafts as we did last year) 

  1. Need to send email to Miguel to engage him in the process for translation if possible  

  1. Reviewers’ database  elena 

  1. Elena will build so it is accessible on dropbox  

  1. Elena will communicate with Miguel re: certificate to recognize reviewers’ service. Miguel requested a certificate which would be an incentive for presenters. Elena will consult with Miguel re: what it should look like, what should go in it. Maybe both Joe and Elena can sign. Elena will talk to Rachel about this too.  

  1. We will make it available to all (English as well as Spanish reviewers)  

  1. Proposal Review template – Nathalis 

  1. Template looks pretty good, might change, still working on some elements of it, will finish tonight and send tonight. 

  1. Background of reviewers? Good for sake of transparency to add as an option. And to know if there is conflict of interest. This will be an important point.  

  1. Template – Tara and Heather 

  1. Tara working on template, Heather will review to make sure it complies with APA formatting 

  1. Nathalis has concerns about template being overly constraining. Other members of the team are becoming concerned that the template seems confusing internally – will it cause confusion for authors too.  

  1. Template is intended as a helpful structure for authors and to save editorial time so the editorial team can focus on what is important – content.  

  1. Last year it was the experience of the editorial team, that making sure authors met formatting and other requirements took a lot of time (or just making the changes ourselves), took an unexpected amount of time.  

  1. Need to think about communication around template to ensure it is clear to authors and does not introduce confusion  

  1. Elena will leave out reference to template in communication to authors for now. It can go out in a later email if we are still using it.  

  1. ARNA Proceedings outline – elena 

  1. Provides an outline for the pieces that will make the next proceedings structure.  

  1. We want to see if keynotes and panel presenters can contribute pieces to ARNA 2015 proceedings.  

  1. Like a table of contents of what is going to be on the pages, who should be writing or contributing different pieces, who we should be contacting/communicating with.  


Ran out of time, will need to table until next meeting:  

  1. ARNA Proceedings timeline – elena 

  1. ARNA Proceedings workgroup space on the ARNA Connect – everyone  

  1. Next meeting – as a suggestion and if possible to determine a regular schedule of meetings for the next 3 months 


  1. Other items discussed: 

 

Action items 

  • elena will send email after this call and in a few days will post an announcement on ARNA connect re: extended due date 

  • Elena will set up a data base (use the list of presenters to set up a spreadsheet to track status of communications and drafts as we did last year) 

  • Elena will send email to Miguel to engage him in the process for translation if possible  

  • Elena will build reviewer database so it is accessible on dropbox  

  • Elena will communicate with Miguel re: certificate to recognize reviewers’ service. Miguel requested a certificate which would be an incentive for presenters. Elena will consult with Miguel re: what it should look like, what should go in it. Maybe both Joe and Elena can sign. Elena will talk to Rachel about this too.  

  • Nathalis finishing the reviewer checklist 

  • Tara finishing the template and sending to Heather to double check   

  • Nathan possible working to update space on ARNA connect 

  • All: need to Need to think about communication around template to ensure it is clear to authors and does not introduce confusion  

  • Everyone please look at the proceedings timelines and consider whether this is feasible (based on August 1 deadline). We will discuss at next meeting. 


 

Next steps: 

  • will communicate by email on timelines from here and plan to meet week of August 1 

  • Heather will be away but can phone or skype in late afternoon that week (between 2 and 5pm) 

  • Elena will send Nathan an email to pin down a date that week

June 10, 2015

posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:12 PM by Jamie Hill

Meeting: Heather and Tara and Elena 

(To discuss author template) 

June 10, 2015 

 

 

Need to write a little intro to template when it gets sent or posted: 

  • Will be posted and also emailed (email when it goes out can include a reminder about Aug. 1 deadline)  

  • Say: Please feel free to download and use this template or just follow the guidelines for formatting etc. and give step-by-step instructions: 

  • Step 1: save the template to your computer with the following title protocol 

  • Step 2: work in the template or work in another word document and then copy and paste into the template to ensure that all the appropriate formatting are applied  

  • Etc. 

 

Tara will finalize template and Heather will check it to make sure it follows APA format 

  • make sure it is consistent with author guidelines  

  • add statement: follow the headings as appropriate for your submission type  

 

Blinding process for submissions unnecessary since it has been determined that it is only a single blind review (reviewers can always discover the identity of authors by consulting the conference agenda)  

  • Need to say to reviewers when we send files, please indicate if you have a conflict of interest.  

 

 

Tara to contact Budd Hall and Jean McNiff re: please consider publishing the keynote and response in proceedings 

  • Oct. 1 deadline but also flexible if another timeline suits 

  • Doesn’t have to be part of the review process because it will more or less just go in as is 

  • Elena will ask Joe and Lonnie to reach out to other keynotes including the panel presenters (Dr. Suzanne Stewart, Dr. Karleen Pendleton-Jimenez, etc.)  

May 29, 2015

posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:00 PM by Jamie Hill   [ updated Sep 27, 2015, 10:08 PM ]

May 29, 2015  

Skype meeting 

ARNA proceedings team 

 

Attending: Elena, Heather, Tara, Nathan, Nathalis 

 

 

Only 1 hour for meeting, priority to discuss the critical items related to proceedings submissions: 

 

5 documents to finalize (All 5 documents on may 29, 2015 call folder in dropbox – documents to review): 

  • Timelines 

  • Editorial team checklist 

  • Guidelines to the authors (prepared prior to conference) 

  • Rubric for manuscript peer review 

  • Template 

 

  1. Timelines: 

 

All agree that Dec. 1, 2015 publication date should work (this date worked in 2014).  

 

Submission deadline:  

  • Elena plans to send email to presenters tomorrow May 30, 2015.  

  • is June 30 (1 month) an acceptable deadline? Or would July 15 be better?  

  • It might be tough in summer – people are away or have other plans? 

  • Summer better time for reviewers, so we are going to go with June 30 timeline.  

  • Got only 4 responses from presenters indicating interest to publish in proceedings but it was a passive notification (elena’s initial query regarding interest in publishing in proceedings) 

  • Elena is going to follow up with more direct request tomorrow with deadline for June 30.  

  • Remind presenters that proceedings are now in 2nd year, peer review status (will be key point for academic authors), include the link to 2014 proceedings so authors can see the finished product (proceedings are more established this year), reminder of the ISSN number  

  • Will frame it as a reminder and ask authors to indicate whether they plan to submit  

  • Will attach guidelines to the email so that all presenters will get these  

  • How many presenters this year compared to last? Not sure but would be good to know. Tara to ask Shelley.  

 

Editorial Team Checklist: 

  • New this year, based on team experience last year  

  • Related to screening for completion of formatting criteria etc. E.g., last year it appeared that some people didn’t seem to follow the guidelines at all. If we could have a checklist this year it will help to communicate with authors early.  

  • Tara to make checklist based on the submission guidelines 

 

 

Guidelines for submissions: 

  • Document was finalized in advance of the 2015 conference and was made available at the proceedings team presentation, at one of the registration tables. It was not included in time to be in the conference packages this year however, so we are not sure how many potential authors will have this document.  

  • Elena is going to include as attachment in her email to presenters.  

 

Rubric for reviewers: 

  • Used with success last year. Helped to guide the review process and helped with consistency, easy to compare reviewer feedback.  

  • Based on the criteria for proposals in 2014, will follow similar process this year.  

  • Note that requirements for conference presentation proposals are minimal, so acceptance of paper in the proceedings is not guaranteed.  

  • Will refer to 2015 criteria for proposals (Heather to send to team) 

  • Needs to be updated for 2015 proceedings (Nathalis) 

  • Send to Nathalis and Nathan: examples of feedback for authors, a range of sample papers (Tara) 

 

Template  

  • Tara worked up a sample based on template from PME 2014 

  • Uses “styles” in Word to set the various formatting requirements for papers 

  • Then the document can be “locked” so that the formatting is fixed; 

  • Idea is that authors should just be able to write in the template and/or cut and paste into the document and the required formatting will apply 

  • Found this necessary because last year many submissions came in that did not consider/adhere to the requirements  

  • Includes cover page with relevant submission information  

  • Tara and Heather to work on this; high priority to make this available to potential authors as soon as possible  

 

Additional discussion:  

Review process 

  • Nathalis had a question re: process in terms of external reviewer from reviewer pool. Important to make this process as efficient as possible. This is described in procedural document that elena sent out. We can modify the process but we have made a proposal that we think will work this year (managing editor will do one review, an external reviewer will do one review as well, and managing editor will coordinate the feedback and communication with author).  

 

 

ACTION ITEMS: 

 

Elena: 

  • follow up with more direct request tomorrow and deadline for June 30.  

  • Remind it’s in it’s 2nd year, in peer review status, include the link to 2014 proceedings so authors can see the finished product (proceedings are more established this year), reminder of the ISSN number  

 

Tara  

  • make checklist for reviewers based on the submission guidelines 

  • email Shelley: how many presenters this year compared to 2014? Also please send finalized list of presenters. 

  • Send to Nathalis and Nathan: examples of feedback for authors, a range of sample papers  

  • Finalize template for authors; include examples of submission type with relevant headings (in guidelines)  

 

Heather: helping Tara to finalize and test the template for authors  

  • Send form that reviewers used to evaluate presentation proposals (2015 presentation criteria) 

 

Nathan: reviewing ARNA website and proceedings page for ease of access to information  

 

Nathalis: updating the reviewer feedback form (rubric)

April 29, 2015 - Meeting Minutes

posted May 3, 2015, 8:55 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Editorial Team Meeting 


Date: April 29, from 11:00 am – 12:30 pm


Items:

  1. ARNA Proceedings proposal review and approval by the Coordinating Team on Friday (4/24)
  2. ARNA Proceedings Guidelines to Authors (Heather) and timeline (elena)
  3. Make an announcement about new Associate Editors
  4. Make an announcement about reviewers
  5. Tara’s update about 2015 conference proposal review criteria and manuscript template
  6. During the conference:
  1. our workshop (all)
  2. our 5 minute presentation during the ARNA Business meeting (elena)
  3. badges (Tara)
  4. table (elena)
  5. our team meeting (all)
  1. Additional items


-----

(1) ARNA Proceedings Proposal review and approval by the Coordinating Team during the meeting held on Friday, April 24.

The Coordinating Team members reviewed and approved the ARNA Proceedings proposal. Following the meeting Lonnie summarized the key points of the discussions. Here is an excerpt in regard to our proposal approval:


Greetings, all.


Just to briefly report on our just completed April Coordinating Group Meeting. Those able to attend included: Joe, Shelley, Margaret, Elena, Rachel and Lonnie. The following items were addressed:

  • Elena presented the revised proposal for the 2015 Proceedings. A review and discussion of Parts I-III of the proposal took place. It was moved by Margaret and Seconded by Rachel and Joe to approve the proposal as presented by Elena. The motion passed unanimously, with much appreciated expressed to Elena and the Proceedings team for the outstanding work they have completed.

Lonnie


ACTION item:

After the Coordinating group meeting, Lonnie asked to finalize the 

Proceedings proposal to have a ‘clan’ copy foe the May 6th Coordinating Team meeting in Toronto.

Our today’s conference call folder titled ‘April 29’ contains a copy of the Proposal as presented to the Coordinating Group members during the April 24th meeting with Lonnie’s comments. I would like us to briefly review this version of the Proposal during our call. I will then finalize and send it to Lonnie and our team.

During the Coordinating Group review of our proposal it was noted that we would not be able to use a double blind review since a reviewer could find out, if chooses, who an author might be based on the conference program.

Another concern was shared about the review process itself to make sure that we consider our members (authors) diversity of fields and experiences. The notion of nurturing approach to review was discussed.


(2) ARNA Proceedings Guidelines to Authors (Heather) and timeline (elena)

Heather drafted a tentative Proceedings Guidelines to Authors and sent it to us on April 24th. This document is available on dropbox under April 29_2015 team conference call.


Jamie won’t be able to join us. She has shared your insights in regard to item 4:

I am still working on sorting out our ARNA connect working group minutes page. And below I have listed some things that would be helpful for authors to know in advance of submitting their work for proceedings publishing.  



ARNA proceedings website format requirements
:

Abstract
Five keywords (words capitalized, separated by semicolons)

APA citation (especially for working group summaries)
   

Title in APA format
   

Authors listed in appropriate order


File name: Last names in order followed by "full text"



ACTION item:

Discuss Heather’s draft and finalize it to use during the conference.


Elena started working with the timeline. However, needs extra time to finalize it based on the Proceedings Guidelines to Authors and Review process.


ACTION item:

Following our call today Elena will finalize the timeline and send it out to review late in the evening.


MAIN ACTION item:

Finalize both documents and send to Shelley. 

Print copies and bring to Toronto to share during our workshop and interactions with the authors.


(3) Make an announcements about new Associate Editors

Heather drafted an announcement. A copy of the announcement is available in our today’s conference call folder.

Suggestion – send it separately from an announcement about reviewers.

Do we want to mention about our workshop that will be held during the conference?

ACTION item:

Following our call today Elena will ask Jamie to place the announcement on the ARNA Connect.



(4) Make an announcement about reviewers

Heather drafted an announcement. A copy of the announcement is available in our today’s conference call folder.

Suggestion – send it separately from the announcement about new 

associate editors

ACTION item:

Finalize this announcement during our call

Following our call today Elena will ask Jamie to place the announcement on the ARNA Connect.

We could continue promoting this opportunity during the conference in Toronto as we interact with the participants.


(5) Tara’s update about 2015 conference proposal review criteria and manuscript template


(6) During the conference:

  1. our workshop (all):

Discuss our plans


  1. our 5 minute presentation during the ARNA Business meeting (elena)


  1. badges (Tara)


  1. table (elena)

elena emailed Shelley and Cathy asking about a table, intro at conference to editorial team, and whether it is feasible to include a one-page communication from the editorial team in the conference package. 

Elena has not heard back.


  1. our team meeting (all):

Discuss potential dates during the conference go arrange our team full meeting



(7)  Additional updates:


  • Cathy and Shelley sent us spreadsheet with presenters’ contact information.

Should we initiate the first contact prior to the conference to (1) ask about interest in publishing in the the Proceedings; (2) share information about our workshop, and (3) attach copy of the Proceedings timetable and guidelines to authors?


  • Lonnie will introduce our team during the dinner. We will have 5 minutes during the business meeting to make a few remarks; similar to the last year’s conference business meeting during which Heather and elena shared briefly about the Proceedings. 


April 9, 2015 - Meeting Minutes

posted May 3, 2015, 8:54 PM by Jamie Hill

Hi everybody!

Here are the notes from today's meeting. Any key decisions made, I tried to put in bold. Action items are in red. 


I thought it might be helpful, since there were so many pieces in process and ongoing action items, to collate a list of action items by member (I was feeling like it might help me to keep track of my to-do list anyways, and just thought I would share with you here for ease of reference). Here it is below (and is also in the notes): 


Heather:

  • going to draft with all 3 candidates for the editorial team in the memo and adjust when final decisions are made.
  • work on the guidelines


Tara:

  • take care of badges (either an identifying sticker for our badges or a ribbon or something)
  • to ask Shelley for review criteria for proposals (not urgent since we agreed to focus on author communication pieces for now, review pieces later, but will still be done)
  • work on template


Elena:

  • email Nathalis and extend invitation to join editorial team
  • email Iliay Bature to ask for more background information
  • email Shelley and Cathy today to ask about: table, intro at conference to editorial team, and whether it is feasible to include a one-page communication from the editorial team in the conference package (if we have it ready next week). Then at the conference we could have more detailed information ready on the table if it is ready in time
  • put most recent related documents from last year in the dropbox so they are easily available for revision
  • meeting with Lonnie tomorrow (will clarify what is meant by “screening” process, not to exclude authors but simply to make sure key components are there and to pass to reviewers)
  • ask Cathy and Shelley for spreadsheet with presenters’ contact information so that we can establish contact with authors once we have timetable and guidelines, our presentation is scheduled, to invite presenters to connect with us at conference etc.
  •  send out message to Jamie to pick a time for next meeting (Monday April 20th after 10 (preference) or Thursday April 23 after 11)
  • Elena will work on timetable and the briefing flyer for conference (including types of manuscripts according to types of presentations)


Best wishes for a great day!

Tara

March 4, 2015 - Meeting Minutes

posted May 3, 2015, 8:51 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Team

Skype meeting 

Present: Tara Flynn, Jamie Hill, Heather Leaman, Elena Polush

Regrets: 

11:00 am-  pm


AGENDA: 

  • Updates:
  1. ARNA Proceedings workshop proposal submitted – BIG THANK YOU to everyone! Hope for a favourable review (a copy of the submitted proposal is available on dropbox under the 2015 main folder).
    • Waiting to hear if accepted, then we will start working on it
  2. ARNA Proceedings Proposal reviewed by the Coordinating Group members on February 18th 2015 – 

update by elena (a copy of our proposal submitted for the Coordinating group members’ considerations available on dropbox);

  • Part 1 (editorial team) and part 2 (reviewer database) accepted by coordinating group.
  • Part 3 – review process cycle – needs more attention and careful consideration, major concern is the way we are trying to institutionalize the proceedings: specifically about the review criteria. Last year, we modified the criteria for conference proposals to align with the conference review criteria for proposals, and developed author guidelines. The proposal to move to a single and double blind review process would have each member of the team working with authors. Concern that we did not have quality time to discuss this part of proposal. Crucial because we need to have clear process in order to include new reviewers as part of the reviewer database. Lonnie wants to take the issue of rigour to the proceedings to the executive committee members. Elena clarified for Lonnie that we are not doing anything new that we did not do last year. More time to be engaged with authors. Since we are ISSN, we need to take that into consideration. Elena told Lonnie that we are going to send him last year’s authors guidelines, and our review criteria – these two documents will need to be updated. Only item that we are including as a separate step is the initial screening (font, page numbers, abstract, word limitations) to make sure that APA guidelines are met. Elena had 5-7 minutes to present. Mentioned that the notion of supporting/nurturing authors was essential to our work last year. Each of us worked diligently to make sure that any questions/concerns were addressed. Focused on nurturing nature of relationship with author. While we had set of criteria, they were not used rigidly to reject proposals. We wanted quality but we were cognizant. Members seemed to be confirmed about how quality will be judged, specifically the screening step possibly. (Maybe change to “checklist” instead of rubric.) Just need more time for consideration for this part of the proposal, more discussion about steps. 
    • Elena’s concern: executive committee is meeting March 18th, if they bring action items from there to coordinating group meeting for approval in April, that will affect our timelines. Time is becoming an issue in that case. However, based on executive committee, chance to engage coordinating group by email rather than waiting for CG meeting. 
    • We want to begin communicating with authors in advance. Last year at conference we had a table without much traffic. So not much interaction with us during conference. We started communication after the conference which put us in a different situation, affected timelines/schedule. Want to begin interacting with authors as soon as proposals are accepted. In communicating with them we would like to share and explain the review process. Authors were not required to write full paper for conference, so starting to work with authors in advance, help them to develop timeline and schedule, work with us/ask questions immediately after the conference will help. The workshop will also help at this year’s conference will also help. 
    • Timely feedback from both group essential to us, so that we can communicate with authors and develop and stick to a timeline that works for editorial team and development of the proceedings. 
    • Need to communicate two things: 1) that the steps outlined in Part 3 are mostly descriptive of what we did last year, and not a new layer or filter, and 2) that initial screening is really about checking content to find a match with a reviewer in the database, and to generally make sure that files are complete, not to judge the quality of the content (may include not passing along an incomplete file or one that doesn’t meet the framework, or going back to ask authors to send complete file before sending along to reviewer in the database).
    • Goal to provide better transition for authors from proposal to full paper. 

  • Action items discuss and plan:

In ref to the Proceedings processes/procedures:

  1. recruit two Associate Editors (Spanish and French language speakers) by making an announcement on the ARNA Connect;
  • related to part 1 of proposal
  1. initiate developing the reviewers’ database by making an announcement on the ARNA Connect (issue/question: Will these reviewers be used for the ARNA Proceedings, digital stories, and conference proposals?)
  • relates to part 2 of proposal 
  1. reflect on/continue discussing the proposed review process cycle as outlined in Part III of the ARNA Proceedings Proposal (concern/issue: quality criteria, standards by which manuscripts/submissions are/should be judged);
  • see notes above
  1. develop a script to be included in an informational/acceptance letter for the authors whose proposals are accepted for the ARNA 2015 conference;
  • Shelley mentioned that it would be nice if we could draft a script that could be sent out to authors with their acceptance letter (acceptance of conference presentation) 
  • Script drafted by EP, edited by TF, and will be sent to team for consideration
  1. update/revise the ARNA Proceedings timetable, authors’ guidance, review criteria – last year documents; align the Proceedings review criteria with the conference review criteria and guidelines; new this year – develop template, screening checklist (rubric) (?).
  • to be the focus of next meeting, once we have revised proposal criteria from Shelley; we can review the documents and develop these procedural items next time. (Plus we can incorporate the decision of the executive committee at that time.) 


In ref. to the Proceedings pages on the ARNA Connect website:

We need to update the current (last year) information and keep our pages active by posting our meeting minutes, announcements, Proceedings related documents (once developed and finalized)


In ref. to the 2015 Proceedings WIKI:

Jamie, is there anything that we may need be doing?

  • Importance of template for this year to help smooth the process (little things were difficult right at the end, e.g., titles weren’t formatted, authors had questions about exact formatting for example APA), we can include those details in those templates 
  • We need to revise guidelines for authors to add specific details
    • will be easier for authors to give that information upfront 
    • When authors have the guidelines/criteria it can be posted on ARNA connect, will be helpful for authors 
  • Jamie to look at ARNA connect to make sure tabs are currently what we want
  • ARNA wants meeting minutes to be posted – we will start with 2015 for posting 
    • Jamie will model after Margaret’s page and take the 3 notes so far from meetings in 2015 
    • Positive move in terms of transparency of ARNA processes and working groups 


Other items:

Elena will communicate with Lonnie to ensure that communication about processes is clear.


We need to work on the announcements for the website (via email, announcement for associate editors, send by email by Tara during the meeting and the announcement for reviewers which Elena is working on and will send out to team).


We also need to work on the clause to go in the acceptance letter (Elena drafted, Tara worked on preliminary edit, now in dropbox as “Proceedings clause_drft_tf”)


Schedule next meeting:

March 31, April 1, April 2

April 8, 9 are also possibilities 

11am EST has been working well

Elena will send out email to Heather and we will confirm a meeting on one of those days 

Focus for that meeting with be Item E in this agenda 


February 12, 2015 - Meeting Minutes

posted May 3, 2015, 8:50 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Team

Skype meeting 

Present: Elena Polush, Tara Flynn, Jamie Hill, Heather Leaman

11:00-12:15pm


AGENDA (continued from last meeting on Jan. 26/15):


On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Polush, Elena <eypolush@bsu.edu> wrote:

With warm greetings and best wishes for a good Monday to All,


I hope that my message will find you well.


Joe and Heather, how are you? I hope that you are staying warm and safe!


This is a quick reminder about our team conference call today, Monday (1/26)  from 11am – noon (EST) via Skype

I will initiate our call.


On our today’s agenda to:

(1) discuss the Knowledge Mobilization infrustracture of which the ARNA Proceedings team is one of the three initiatives (Joe and everyone);

(2) put together our team’s tasks as we move forward with (1) refining the developed ARNA Proceedings processes and procedures and (2) planning/preparing the ARNA 2015 Proceedings (everyone), and

(3) schedule our team’s next call (everyone).


As a suggestion, a few items (tasks) for our consideration:


(A) the ARNA Proceedings Editorial Team composition:

What should be the ARNA Proceedings Editorial team composition and each member’s roles/responsibilities?

Currently, we are a team of 4 that includes a Lead Editor, two Associate Editors, and one Assistant Editor, who is also a Webmaster. 

We talked about a need to have (1) an Associate Editor fluent in English and Spanish and, potentially, an Associate Editor fluent in French and English; and (2) an Assistant Editor (or Managing Editor).

Last year (at the very beginning of our team interactions) we also developed (darted) each editor’s roles and responsibilities that we will need to revisit.


(B) the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure

Our goal is to develop ARNA Proceedings as a peer-reviewed publication.

What should be the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure? Should we have an Editorial Board? If so, what would be the members’ roles and responsibilities? What would be the process through which we will identify/invite/select people (the ARNA community members) to serve on the Board?

Alternatively, should we have/develop a database/list of reviewers?


What would be the peer-review process? 

For example, the Journal of Ethnography and Qualitative Research (JEQR) uses the following process:

Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the journal’s editors with an initial decision made regarding whether the manuscript should/will be routed for peer-review. The editors are using the Editorial Team Screening Rubric. The peer-reviewers will then review the selected through the initial screening manuscripts. The peer-reviewers use the Evaluation Rubric. The peer-reviewers provide both numerical (scores) and narrative feedback to the managing editor regarding recommendations for accepting/rejecting the manuscript for publication. The final decision regarding the manuscript’s publication, following blind-review, is made by the journal’s managing editor.


Thinking about/refining/developing the ARNA Proceedings Editorial team composition with the members’ roles/responsibilities and the review process will be essential for us to determine our timeline as it relates to communicating with the authors, conducting review, preparing manuscripts for publication, and publishing the Proceedings online. 


(C) initiate communication and work closely with the ARNA 2015 conference planning committee to align the proposal submission and Proceedings review criteria; develop the potential authors database and keep in touch with the authors


(D) develop a workshop proposal for the ARNA 2015 conference (due date February 15)


(E) update our space on the ARNA Connect, keep it updated, and communicate with the members periodically by posting announcements


The above items are suggestions for your consideration as a way to get us started.


The ARNA Coordinating Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18. We will need to develop a proposal as it relates to (1) our team compassion, roles and responsibilities and (2) the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure, review process, and publication timeline.





Regarding items A and B:

  • elena preparing a proposal by Sunday. If time, please look over on Sunday so it can be sent to the coordinating committee. This will be regarding editorial team composition/number. Coordinating team wanted to see a proposal that outlines transition to peer review publication. Their next meeting is Wednesday Feb. 18. 
    • Add one or two editors (associate editors or assistant editors) to help manage communication and take notes.
      • We built database last year, need to upgrade and use this year. A lot of management by the team last year, hoping for more assistance in these matters.
      • Reorganize or increase the ARNA editorial team composition. 
    • Aligning with the proposal process. Streamlining our communication with those authors whose proposals have been accepted by the conference and start working with them earlier. Within that focus we were thinking we would create a database of reviewers so that team would be screening papers submitted after the conference and then assigning to reviewers from the database. Assigning and responsible for final editorial and comments, engaging in a blind review process rather than team doing the reviews ourselves (or an editorial board that operates in the same capacity). Goal to make ARNA proceedings a peer review publication. 
    • How many people, what roles should we assign? What infrastructure to support making ARNA proceedings a peer-reviewed publication? 
    • Editorial board vs. database of reviewers? What is the difference? Editorial board sometimes is responsible for sending along to reviewers (Heather’s experience). 3 reviewers was too few in terms of resources for reviewing. 
    • What do we have in mind in terms of process…(e.g., working longer/earlier with authors, smoothing the process between conference proposals and proceedings submissions)?
    • Critical having a person who has Spanish is a necessity if we are trying to be bilingual organization. We don’t have Jose who last year filled that role. We would like to add one Spanish speaker to the team who can fill this role (e.g., translating author communication for Spanish submissions etc.) Right now communications on ARNA website are in French, English and Spanish. For Canada and ARNA’s geographic focus, we should possible consider adding an associate editor also fluent in French. Or other languages based on ARNA’s needs. 
      • Agreement: one person fluent in Spanish, one in French (Tara can investigate)
      • In agreement to a team of 6 editors – the 4 of us plus Spanish and French speakers
      • Question: is it possible to recruit language speakers who are not action researchers? Eg. Undergrad student? 
      • Preference to open opportunity to ARNA members
      • Challenges with having members involved who are not action researchers, also grad students have competing priorities that make involvement challenging 
      • Sara Garcia is an option: suggested by Lonnie earlier
      • Ask for coordinating group’s suggestions
      • We could put an announcement on the website to recruit additional members (although we also would need to think about our process for screening those who respond, and what would be the commitment we would ask from those members, to ensure some continuity – process for selection of editorial team) 
      • Benefit to considering if we are moving to peer-review – then announcement could be for reviewers on website as well as editorial board (and we could consider discussing both roles with those who reply and where they would be suited) 
      • Do we want to establish terms? (e.g., commitment of two years?) Should we mention this in the announcement (two-year term)? 
      • The coordinating group could be responsible for approval. 
      • Need to start thinking about by-laws for editorial/conference proceedings team. 
      • Elena can work on transition for lead editor. 
      • Last year we had no responses even after a couple of calls for reviewers and a plea at the conference; hopefully that won’t be the case next year. 
      • Review: lead editor, 5 associate editors (one of whom is webmaster, one Spanish, one French, one English and after that any language representation) making a team of 6. 
      • Need to think about transitional plans for adding new editorial team members as existing members step down, how to plan for these transitions. 
      • Would be helpful to have a living document (in the form of by-laws or by some other name) that the team can continue to revise, having protocols so that there is never a brand new board, but two new members coming on as two are rolling off of their time commitment.
    • Infrastructure: what is difference between editorial board and a database of reviewers? 
      • Elena and Heather’s experience is that the board model is for an initial screening
      • In Tara’s experience, proceedings team would do the initial screening and send to external reviewer for additional (single or double blind) review (agreed by all that editorial team has the capacity and knowledge of ARNA mandates and requirements to do initial screening) 
      • Editorial team can do initial pass for fit/content/requirements etc., then if we are lucky enough to build an editorial board of 5-10 reviewers, who can be the data base of reviewers, these can do one blind peer-review while one of the 6 editorial team can do the 2nd review (so each manuscript has two reviewers: one double blind, one single blind) 
    • Process: 
      • Who is making a final decision? That external reviewer is sending feedback to the managing editor from the team as well as your own. Who makes that final decision? 
      • Would require making authors ensure double blind review (removing author identifying information)…might be difficult (e.g., if papers identify their institution, region, schools) 
      • Seems that each submission should have a managing editor (who does initial screening, sends out to external reviewer, does their own review, collates the review comments, communicates with authors…in essence follows any assigned manuscript through its journey towards publication) 
      • Template for submission? Could be required to be blinded. Adds layer of seriousness of process. Could also address issues that came up last year. And may be good to do for reasons of confidentiality (external reviewers not knowing identify of authors)
      • Team members like this suggestion. 
        • Decision to go with hybrid of single blind review (authors will not know the reviewer) from editorial team with double blind review from external reviewer (neither author nor reviewer knows the other’s identify) for 2015 proceedings
        • Process: Asking authors to fill in template (including all formatting), with instructions for blinding the submission. Then submissions get assigned to editorial board members, who does screening, coordinates with external reviewer for double blind review, puts her feedback together with external reviewer, writes final recommendations. Then that member would be communicating with authors, without revealing who on the editorial board conducted the review (single blind). Divide total number of submissions among 5 of us, then responsibility for moving those submissions forward lies with assigned managing editor.  



ACTION ITEMS:

  • elena to put forward a proposal to the coordinating committee for these conference proceedings issues (infrastructure, process and procedures) 
  • Heather to review on Sunday with Tara to review on Tuesday 
  • Elena to put forward a proposals for workshop for writing/publishing in the conference proceedings 


Next meeting:

March 4 or 5, 2015 – 11am (elena will email the team and propose that Jamie pick whichever day works best for her since elena, Tara and Heather are all available those days) 


January 26, 2015 - Meeting Minutes

posted May 3, 2015, 8:48 PM by Jamie Hill

ARNA Proceedings Team

Skype meeting 

Present: Joe Shosh, Elena Polush, Tara Flynn, Jamie Hill

Regrets: Heather Leaman

11:00-12pm


AGENDA: 


On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Polush, Elena <eypolush@bsu.edu> wrote:

With warm greetings and best wishes for a good Monday to All,


I hope that my message will find you well.


Joe and Heather, how are you? I hope that you are staying warm and safe!


This is a quick reminder about our team conference call today, Monday (1/26)  from 11am – noon (EST) via Skype

I will initiate our call.


On our today’s agenda to:

(1) discuss the Knowledge Mobilization infrustracture of which the ARNA Proceedings team is one of the three initiatives (Joe and everyone);

(2) put together our team’s tasks as we move forward with (1) refining the developed ARNA Proceedings processes and procedures and (2) planning/preparing the ARNA 2015 Proceedings (everyone), and

(3) schedule our team’s next call (everyone).


As a suggestion, a few items (tasks) for our consideration:


(A) the ARNA Proceedings Editorial Team composition:

What should be the ARNA Proceedings Editorial team composition and each member’s roles/responsibilities?

Currently, we are a team of 4 that includes a Lead Editor, two Associate Editors, and one Assistant Editor, who is also a Webmaster. 

We talked about a need to have (1) an Associate Editor fluent in English and Spanish and, potentially, an Associate Editor fluent in French and English; and (2) an Assistant Editor (or Managing Editor).

Last year (at the very beginning of our team interactions) we also developed (darted) each editor’s roles and responsibilities that we will need to revisit.


(B) the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure

Our goal is to develop ARNA Proceedings as a peer-reviewed publication.

What should be the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure? Should we have an Editorial Board? If so, what would be the members’ roles and responsibilities? What would be the process through which we will identify/invite/select people (the ARNA community members) to serve on the Board?

Alternatively, should we have/develop a database/list of reviewers?


What would be the peer-review process? 

For example, the Journal of Ethnography and Qualitative Research (JEQR) uses the following process:

Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the journal’s editors with an initial decision made regarding whether the manuscript should/will be routed for peer-review. The editors are using the Editorial Team Screening Rubric. The peer-reviewers will then review the selected through the initial screening manuscripts. The peer-reviewers use the Evaluation Rubric. The peer-reviewers provide both numerical (scores) and narrative feedback to the managing editor regarding recommendations for accepting/rejecting the manuscript for publication. The final decision regarding the manuscript’s publication, following blind-review, is made by the journal’s managing editor.


Thinking about/refining/developing the ARNA Proceedings Editorial team composition with the members’ roles/responsibilities and the review process will be essential for us to determine our timeline as it relates to communicating with the authors, conducting review, preparing manuscripts for publication, and publishing the Proceedings online. 


(C) initiate communication and work closely with the ARNA 2015 conference planning committee to align the proposal submission and Proceedings review criteria; develop the potential authors database and keep in touch with the authors


(D) develop a workshop proposal for the ARNA 2015 conference (due date February 15)


(E) update our space on the ARNA Connect, keep it updated, and communicate with the members periodically by posting announcements


The above items are suggestions for your consideration as a way to get us started.


The ARNA Coordinating Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18. We will need to develop a proposal as it relates to (1) our team compassion, roles and responsibilities and (2) the ARNA Proceedings infrastructure, review process, and publication timeline.




Item 1: Joe and Knowledge Mobilization infrastructure 

  • Thank you for the work of the editorial team and the high quality work 
  • Proceedings team is a model working group for ARNA’s infrastructure
  • Product that helps practitioners to construct knowledge 
  • How do we continue to develop a larger infrastructure for ARNA in which independent working groups work? 
  • Knowledge mobilization: bringing users to the website. Proceedings give a reason to go the website in addition to conference information. Infrastructure of knowledge mobilization providing users another reason to come to site. 
  • Test launch of a new resource, being officially launched soon: Action Research in Action blog
  • Initiative to take digital video asking people from around the world to comment on the conference theme, at the conference for example, want to get that organized on the website 
  • Cathy Bruce started a digital story telling space at the beginning of ARNA but we didn’t get infrastructure in place to keep it going. Rich McPherson is going to chair digital storytelling group for organizing what we already have and to continue to collect and publish these stories going forward. 
  • How can we provide infrastructure that supports all of these: conference proceedings, Action Research in Action blog, digital storytelling, conference itself
  • Possibility of organizing a review board, attempts to coordinate the conference proposal process with the conference proceedings process. In future we would hopefully have a review board to call upon to help with review process. (Elena and Shelley have had a conversation about this, Elena to update us later in this meeting.)
  • Exciting time for ARNA, with challenges as ARNA grows. How will we build it to support it in the future as it grows? Different ARNA leaders have set up some systems, but when new people take it over, how can we ensure that things are set up so they are done in a systematic and ongoing matter? 
  • How does the proceedings committee document the processes so that it can be continued as new team members come on?
  • How can we grow in meaningful ways? 
  • Can we also set up a review process for the video stories group that Rich is sharing. 


Jamie: not many following the facebook post, could be reaching a wider audience. 

  • how do we use social media to ARNA’s advantage
  • yes it would be good to have more people involved. 


Tara: didn’t know there was a facebook page, speaks to our need to better coordinate ourselves and the hard work of different people and groups involved in ARNA


Joe: conference proceedings group is a model for an ARNA working group. Productive, effective in getting out the proceedings to spread the knowledge that otherwise might have ended with the conference. How do we replicate this model for other groups eg. Digital group? Structure and routine set by deadlines. Need to set some internal deadlines to keep things moving along. 


Elena: regular news bulletins on the ARNA news page? Eg. Reminder now that proceedings are available and looking ahead to proposal submissions for ARNA 2015 Toronto. 

  • web issues with finding things on the ARNA site
  • new mixed methods group, MMIRA, e.g., sends out  regular newsletters via automated email
  • overrepresentation of academics, how do we increase practitioner involvement/ contributions to ARNA (including conference proposals and proceedings) 
  • new member welcomes
  • main reason we decided to continue as a team this year, so we can maintain consistency, reflect on previous process, and refine our processes. Last year was trial and error. Need to reflect on timeline, and add blind peer-review process if we can. Need to think through the infrastructure process. Review board? Database of reviewers? Then team can screen and send to someone whose expertise is more aligned with topic for review. 
  • Need to expand the editorial team
  • Need to document roles and responsibilities of our team members. 
  • We have talked about rigour, want to maintain standards while working with authors to ensure quality of the proceedings (learning opportunity). 
  • Editing issue: as much as we asked authors to pay attention to grammar etc.
  • Workshop proposal for 2015 to share experiences, invite authors to attend


Joe: challenge getting practitioners to attend 

  • getting practitioners to attend to learn about the writing process 


Elena: we need to start talking with Shelley about criteria for proposals

  • last year we had a proposal, two options – at the submission time when the presenters were submitting presentation proposals, at that time indicated whether they would like to publish in proceedings if accepted. Other option: once they are accepted, could be asked if they are interested in publishing. Once they say yes, then at that point for us to start communicating with them, criteria for publishing, working more closely with authors through the writing process. 
  • Will talk to Shelley about aligning review criteria. 


Jamie: need to attract people to that workshop through advertising and strategic scheduling so people are drawn to the workshop. 


Elena: thank you to Heather, Tara and Jamie to absolutely incredible work. We are a great team who work well together. Look at availability for a 1.5 hour meeting to work on the above issues: editorial team, review infrastructure and workshop proposal. 


Joe: Thank you to the team for incredible work, please let me know when it would be helpful for me to join you. 


Next meeting:

11:00am EST one day during the week of Feb. 9th

Elena to confirm via email. 

Tara to send notes from today’s meeting via email. 

We will use this as the continued agenda for next meeting. 


1-10 of 11

Comments