Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook

Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-196

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905062321     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203927984     Document Type: Book

References (318)

1. Chandler, D. (1995). The act of writing: A media theory approach. Aberystwyth: University of Wales.
2. Cotton, D. & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think-aloud method for evaluating e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 45-54.
3. Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431-47.
4. Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power (2nd edn). New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (June), 221-3.
6. Fowler, H. W. & Fowler, F. (1906). The King's English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Ghiselin, B. (Ed.). (1980). The creative process: A symposium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187-207). New York: Guilford Press.
9. Hartley, J. (1994). Three ways to improve the clarity of abstracts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(2), 331-43.
10. Hartley, J., Branthwaite, J. A., Ganier, F. & Heurley, L. (2007). Lost in translation: Contributions of translators to the meanings of text. Journal of Information Science, 35(5), 551-65.
11. Hartley, J., Howe, M. J. A. & McKeachie, W. J. (2001). Writing through time: Longitudinal studies of the effects of new technology on writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 141-51.
12. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J. W. & Fox, C. (2003). Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? Scientometrics, 57(3), 389-98.
13. Hartley, J., Sotto, E. & Fox, C. (2004). Clarity across the disciplines: An analysis of texts in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Science Communication, 26(2), 188-210.
14. Hartley, J, Sotto, E. & Pennebaker, J. (2002). Style and substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones? Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 321-34.
15. Hartley, J., Trueman, M. & Meadows, A. J. (1988). Readability and prestige in scientific journals. Journal of Information Science, 14(1), 69-75.
16. Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28-40). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Kieft, M. (2006). The effects of adapting writing instruction to students' writing strategies. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
18. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
19. Kollberg, P. & Eklundh, K. S. (2001). Studying writers' revising patterns with Snotation analysis. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 89-104). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. Medawar, P. (1964). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Retrieved 24 September 2006 from http://bioq.weblog.com/pt/arquivo/medawar.pdf.
21. Murray, R. & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
22. Oppenheimer, D. M. (2005). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139-56.
23. Pamuk, O. (2006). My father's suitcase. Nobel lecture, 7 December 2006. Retrieved 3 January 2007 from http://nobelprize.org.nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2006/ pamuk-lecture_en.html.
24. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E. & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Reid, D. J., Briggs, N. & Beveridge, M. (1983). The effects of pictures upon the readability of a school science topic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(3), 327-35.
26. Schriver, K. A. (1989). Evaluating text quality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 238-55.
27. Sharples, M. (1999). How we write. London: Routledge
28. Shelley, M. & Schuh, J. H. (2001). Are the best higher education journals really the best? A meta-analysis of writing quality and readability. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 33(1), 11-22.
29. Smyth, T. R. (1996). Writing in psychology: A student guide. New York: Wiley.
30. Smyth. T. R. (2004). The principles of writing in psychology: London: Palgrave Macmillan.
31. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47 (Spring/Summer), 217-52.
32. Torrance, M. & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67-80). New York: Guilford Press.
33. Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V. & Robinson, E. J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate researchers in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27, 379-92.
34. Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171 (25 April), 737-8.
35. Wellington, J. (2003). Getting published: A guide for lecturers and researchers. London: Routledge.
36. Wengelin, A. (2007). The word-level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 67-82). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
37. Woods, P. (1999). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.
38. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
39. Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays towards a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English (2nd edn). Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41. Thaiss, C. & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and academic disciplines. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
42. Crosby, H. H. (1976). Titles, a treatise on . . . College Composition & Communication, 27(4), 387-91.
43. Hartley, J. (2007). There's more to titles than meets the eye: Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 37(1), 97-103.
44. Soler, V. (2007). Writing titles in science: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 90-102.
45. Hartley, J. (2005). To attract or to inform: What are titles for? Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 203-13.
46. Hartley, J. Planning that title: Practices and preferences for titles with colons. Library & Information Science Research, 29(4), 553-68.
47. American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edn). Washington: American Psychological Association.
48. Buehring, G. C., Buehring, J. E. & Gerard, P. D. (2007). Lost in citation: Vanishing visibility of senior authors. Scientometrics, 72(3), 459-68.
49. Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M. & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(1), 41-6.
50. Bayley, L. & Eldredge, J. E. (2003). The structured abstract: An essential tool for researchers. Hypothesis, 17(1), 1 and 11-15. Or: http://research.mlanet.org/structured_ abstract.html. (Retrieved 1 August 2006.)
51. Bunn, F., Collier, T., Frost, C., Ker, K., Roberts, I. & Wentz, R. (2003). Traffic calming for the prevention of road traffic injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury Prevention, 9(3), 200-4.
52. Clariana, R. B. & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 259-70.
53. Duperrex, O., Bunn, F. & Roberts, I. (2002). Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324(7348), 1129-34.
54. Evans, L. (2000). Risks older drivers face themselves and threats they pose to other road users. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29(2), 315-22.
55. Flouri, E. (2006). Parental interest in children's education, children's self-esteem and locus of control, and later educational attainment: Twenty-six year follow-up of the 1970 British Birth Cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 41-56.
56. Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 368-71.
57. Hartley, J. & Benjamin, M. (1998). An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 443-56.
58. Hartley, J. & Betts, L. (2007). The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(14), 2335-40.
59. Lauth, G. W., Heubeck, B. G. & Mackowiak, K. (2006). Observation of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) problems in three natural classroom contexts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 385-404.
60. Maliski, S. L., Heilemann, M. V. & McCorkle, R. (2002). From 'death sentence' to 'good cancer': Couples' transformation of a prostate cancer diagnosis. Nursing Research, 5(6), 391-7.
61. Mayhew, D. R. & Simpson, H. M. (2002). The safety value of driver education and training. Injury Prevention, 8 (Suppl. II): ii3-ii8.
62. Nakayama, T., Hirai, N., Yamazaki, S. & Naito, M. (2005). Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(2), 237-42.
63. Packer, M. J. & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontological, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-41.
64. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 405-19.
65. Wilding, J. & Andrews, B. (2006). Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an undergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 171-82.
66. Wright, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before-after design: When t test and ANCOVA produce different results. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 663-75.
67. Hartley, J., Rock, J. & Fox, C. (2005). Teaching psychology students to write structured abstracts: An evaluation study. Psychology Teaching Review, 1(1), 2-11.
68. Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2004). Driven to abstraction: Doctoral supervision and writing pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 195-209.
69. Kelly, A. E. & Yin, R. K. (2007). Strengthening structured abstracts for education research: The need for claim-based structured abstracts. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 133-8.
70. Gbur, E. E. & Trumbo, B. (1995). Key words and phrases - the key to scholarly visibility and efficiency in an information explosion. The American Statistician, 49(1), 29-33.
71. Hartley, J. & Kostoff, R. N. (2003). How useful are 'key words' in scientific journals? Journal of Information Science, 29(5), 433-8.
72. Hughes, W. P. (2005). Keywords: Their choice and their importance. Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Newsletter, 20(1), 2-3 and 21(1), 4-5.
73. Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. Haggan, M. (1998). In search of the linguistics niche: A study of research article introductions in Linguistics, Literature and Science. Arab Journal for the Humanities, 61, 345-77.
75. Lewin, B., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
76. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
77. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
78. Kendall, P. C., Silk, J. S. & Chu, B. C. (2000). Introducing your research report: Writing the introduction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 41-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80. Gotzsche, P. C. (2006). Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: A cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, 333, 231-4.
81. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
82. Reis, H. T. (2000). Writing effectively about design. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 81-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83. Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results. Telling a good story. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 121-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
85. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
86. Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental 'facts' in science: A study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-28.
87. Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-37.
89. Lewin, B., Fine, J. & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
90. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
91. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students (2nd edn). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
92. Woods, P. (1999). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.
93. Calfee, R. (2000). What does it all mean? The discussion. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 133-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94. Cronin, B. & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(14), 1909-18.
95. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly literature of Psychology and Philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-71.
96. Cronin, B., Shaw, D. & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century Chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160-8.
97. Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
98. Giles, C. L. & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automated acknowledgement indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(51), 1759-64.
99. Hartley, J. (2003). Single authors are not alone: Colleagues often help. The Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 34(2), 108-13.
100. Slatcher, R. B. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words. Psychological Science, 17(8), 660-4.
101. Suls, J. & Fletcher, B. (1983). Social comparison in the social and physical sciences: An archival study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 575-80.
102. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
103. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
104. Connors, R. J. (1999). The rhetoric of citation systems - Part II: Competing epistemic values in citation. Rhetoric Review, 17(2), 219-36.
105. Donovan, S. K. (2006). Comment: Discouraging verification: Citation practices across disciplines. Journal of Scholarly Publication, 37(4), 313-16.
106. EndNote (2007). EndNote information. Retrieved 19 May 2007 from www.endnote. com/eninfo.asp.
107. Fowler, J. H. & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427-47.
108. Hartley, J. (2002). On choosing typographic settings for reference lists. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 917-32.
109. Hellsten, T., Lambiotte, R., Scharnhorst, A. & Ausloos, M. (2007). Self-citations, coauthorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists' field mobility? Scientometrics, 72(3), 469-86.
110. Henige, D. (2006). Discouraging verification: Citation practices across the disciplines. Journal of Scholarly Publication, 37(2), 99-118.
111. Robillard, A. E. (2006). Young scholars affecting composition: A challenge to disciplinary citation practice. College English, 68(3), 253-70.
112. Hutson, S. R. (2006). Self-citation in Archaeology: Age, gender, prestige, and the self. Retrieved 20 January 2007 from Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theory, 13(1) (page numbers unspecified) (www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jarm).
113. Grafton, A. (1997). The footnote: A curious history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
114. Hartley, J. (1999). What do we know about footnotes? Opinions and data. Journal of Information Science, 25(3), 205-12.
115. Slomanson, W. R. (1987). The bottom line: Footnote logic in law review writing. Legal References Services Quarterly, 7(1), 47-69.
116. Bensman, J. (1988). The aesthetics and politics of footnoting. Politics, Culture and Society, 1(3), 443-70.
117. Jansen, F., van Lijf, A. & Toussaint, E. (2002). A note on the evaluation of footnotes and other devices for background information in popular scientific texts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 195-201.
118. Stiff, P. (1997). 'A footnote kicks him': How books make readers work. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 28(2), 65-75.
119. Donovan, S. K. (2007). The importance of resubmitting rejected papers. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38(3), 151-5.
120. Griffiths, M. (1992). Under (peer) pressure. The Psychologist, 5(7), p. 336.
121. Warren, M. G. (2000). Reading reviews, suffering rejection, and advocating for your paper. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 169-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
122. Woods, P. (1999). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.
123. Gosden, H. (2003). 'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
124. Wagner, R. K. (2000). Rewriting the psychology paper. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 187-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
125. Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
126. Hartley, J. (2007). Guiding the copy editor: Positioning tables and figures in the text. PsyPAG Quarterly Newsletter, Issue 63, June, pp. 54-9.
127. Haynes, A. (2001). Writing successful textbooks. London: A. & C. Black.
128. Haynes, A. (2006). Authors from hell. The Author, CXVII(3), 99-100.
129. Society of Authors. (2003). Quick Guide 8: Publishing contracts. London: Society of Authors.
130. Woods, P. (1998). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.
131. Luey, B. (2002). Handbook for academic authors (4th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
132. Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 45-55.
133. Dorwick, K. (2003). Weeping stones, living trees: Creating and archiving electronic texts in student and scholarly writing. In J. R. Walker & O. O. Oviedo (Eds). TnT: Texts and technology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
134. Duke, N. K. & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-6.
135. Geraerts, E. (2006). Remembrance of things past: The cognitive psychology of remembering and forgetting trauma. Maastricht, NL: Maastricht University Press.
136. Hartley, J. (1997). Writing the thesis. In N. Graves & V. Varma (Eds.), Working for a doctorate; A guide for the humanities and social sciences (pp. 96-112). London: Routledge.
137. Kools, M. (2005). Get the picture? A cognitive-psychological approach to systematic health education materials design. Maastricht, NL: Maastricht University Press.
138. Luey, B. (2002). Handbook for academic authors (4th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
139. Moxley, J. M. (2003). The role of compositionists in creating the networked digital library of theses and dissertations. In J. R. Walker & O. O. Oviedo (Eds.), TnT: Texts and technology (pp. 137-47). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
140. Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 125-43.
141. Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary differences in doctoral theses. Higher Education, 36, 273-99.
142. Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Abingdon: Routledge.
143. Murray, R. (2006). How to write a thesis (2nd edn). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
144. Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. The Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2(2) (pages unspecified) (www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php).
145. Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 113-22.
146. Andrews, R. (2005). The place of systematic reviews in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 399-416.
147. Cooper, H. & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 143-54.
148. Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A. & Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27-44.
149. Elashoff, J. D. & Snow, R. E. (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones.
150. Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
151. Guyatt, G., DiCenso, A., Farewell, V., Willan, A. & Griffith, L. (2000). Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 167-74.
152. Hartley, J. (2000). Investigating homework: An outsider's view. In J. Hartley & A. Branthwaite (Eds.), The Applied Psychologist (2nd edn, pp. 163-78). Buckingham: Open University Press.
153. Hartley, J., Branthwaite, A. & Cook, A. (1980). Writing reviews: Some problems of reviewing research in the social sciences. In J. Hartley (Ed.), The psychology of written communication (pp. 252-62). London: Kogan Page.
154. Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, VIII(2), 129-52.
155. Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977). How numbers are shown: A review of the research on the presentation of quantitative information. Audio-Visual Communication Review, (25)4, 359-409.
156. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
157. Torgerson C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 89-102.
158. Torgerson, C. J., Porthouse, J. & Brooks, G. (2003). A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions in adult literacy and numeracy. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 234-55.
159. Vernon, M. D. (1946). Learning from graphical material. British Journal of Psychology, 36, 145-59.
160. Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
161. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review. Buckingham: Open University Press.
162. Kamler, B. & Thompson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Abingdon: Routledge.
163. Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
164. Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 398-411.
165. Austin-Wells, V., Zimmerman, T. & McDougall, G. J. (2003). Determining an optimal delivery format for lectures targeting mature adults. Educational Gerontology, 29(6), 493-501.
166. Brown, L. D. (2005). The importance of circulating and presenting manuscripts: Evidence from the accounting literature. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 55-83.
167. Drott, N. C. (1995). Re-examining the role of conference papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(4), 299-305.
168. Gould, S. J. (1995). Ladders and cones: Constraining evolution by canonical icons. In Silvers, R. B. (Ed.), Hidden histories of science (pp. 37-67). New York: The New York Review of Books.
169. Hartley, J. (2004). On requesting conference papers electronically. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 475-9.
170. Hartley, J. (2005). Refereeing and the single author. Journal of Information Science, 31(3), 251-6.
171. Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A. & Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 511-32.
172. Myers, G. (2000). Powerpoints: Technology, lectures and changing genres. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp. 177-91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
173. Schwartz, G. J. & Kennicutt, R. C. (2004). Demographics and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and pre-prints. 10 November. Retrieved 3 September 2006 from http://arxiv.org/PS-cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411275v1.pdf.
174. Stolk, P., Egberts, A. C. G. & Leufkens, H. G. M. (2002). Fate of abstracts presented at five international conferences on pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1995-1999. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 11(2), 105-11.
175. Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint's power in the classroom: Enhancing students' selfefficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203-15.
176. Vallance, M. & Towndrow, P. A. (2007). Towards the informed use of information and communication technology in education: A response to Adams' 'PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture.' Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 219-27.
177. Weller, A. C. (2002). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
178. Edirisooriya, G. (1996). Research presentation in a democratic society: A voice from the audience. Educational Researcher, 25(6) 25-30.
179. Farkas, D. (2006). Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information Design Journal, 14(2), 162-71.
180. Fischer, B. A. & Zigmond, M. J. (2006). Attending professional meetings successfully. Retrieved 1 September 2006 from www.survival.pitt.edu/library/documents/Attending professionalmeetings-general-2006.pdf.
181. Hall, G. M. (Ed.) (2007). How to present at meetings (2nd edn). BMJ Books, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
182. Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Concept mapping, PowerPoint, and a pedagogy of access. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 1-5.
183. Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K. & Muffo, J. (2006). How the design of headlines in presentation slides affects audience retention. Technical Communication, 53(2), 1-10.
184. Hartley, J. & Yates, P. (2001). Referees are not always right! The case of the 3-D graph. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 623-6.
185. Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Perceptions of clarity and attractiveness in PowerPoint graph slides. Technical Communication, 54(2), 145-56.
186. Nicol, A. A. M. & Pexman, P. M. (1999). Presenting your findings: A practical guide for creating tables. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
187. Nicol, A. A. M. & Pexman, P. M. (2003). Displaying your findings: A practical guide for creating figures, posters and presentations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
188. Salovey, P. (2000). Results that get results: Telling a good story. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Guide to publishing in psychology journals (pp. 121-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
189. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B. & Robertson-Nay, A. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57(10), 749-61.
190. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative data. Cheshire, CT 06410: Graphics Press.
191. Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
192. Hartley, J. (2007). Guiding the copy editor: Positioning tables and figures in the text. PsyPag Quarterly Newsletter, Issue 63, June, pp. 54-9.
193. Fischer, B. A. & Zigmond, M. J. (2006). Attending professional meetings successfully. Retrieved 11 July 2007 from www.survival.pitt.edu.
194. Nicol, A. A. M. & Pexman, P. M. (2003). Displaying your findings: A practical guide for creating figures, posters and presentations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
195. Matthews, D. L. (1990). The scientific poster: Guidelines for effective visual communication. Technical Communication, 37(3rd Quarter), 225-32.
196. Bressler, M. (1999). Contemporary Sociology: A quarter century of book reviews. Sociological Forum, 14(4), 707-20.
197. Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194-207.
198. Miranda, E. O. (1996). On book reviewing. Journal of Educational Thought, 30(2), 191-202.
199. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The flow of ideas within and amongst disciplines. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
200. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
201. Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129-40.
202. Horton, R. (2002). Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2843-7.
203. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
204. Magnet, A. & Carnet, D. (2006). Letters to the editor: Still vigorous after all these years? A presentation of the discursive and linguistic features of the genre. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 173-99.
205. Leong, S. C. L. (2006). Letters to the editor: Publish or perish. Clinical Otolaryngology, 31(4), 350-2.
206. Bar-Ilan, J. (2005). Expectations versus reality - Search engine features needed for Web research at mid 2005. Retrieved 18 October 2006 from Cybermetrics, 9(1), paper 2 (page numbers unspecified) (www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/)
207. Bjork, B-C. & Turk, Z. (2002). How scientists retrieve publications: An empirical study of how the Internet is overtaking paper media. Retrieved 20 October 2006 from the Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6(2) (page numbers unspecified) (www.press.umich.edu/ jep/06-02/bjork.html).
208. Jacso, P. (2006). Google Scholar and The Scientist. Retrieved 6 January 2006 from www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso/extra/gs/.
209. Jankowska, M. A. (2004). Identifying university professors' information needs in the challenging environment of information and communication technologies. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(1), 51-66.
210. Junni, P. (2007). Students seeking information for their Masters' theses: The effect of the Internet. Retrieved 18 July 2007 from Information Research, 12(2), paper 305 (http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2paper305.html).
211. Khoo, C., Luyt, B., Ee, C., Osman, J., Lim, H. H. & Yound, S. (2007). How users organize electronic files on their workstations in the office environment: A preliminary study of personal information organization behaviour. Retrieved 18 July 2007 from Information Research, 12(2), paper 293 (page numbers unspecified) (http://InformationR. net/ir/12-2paper293.html).
212. Mann, G., Mimno, D. & McCallum, A. (2006). Bibliometric impact measures leveraging topic analysis. Proceedings of the 6th ACM / IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 65-74). Chapel Hill, NJ: ACM Press.
213. Schwartz, G. J. & Kennicutt, R. C. (2004). Demographics and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and pre-prints. 10 November. Retrieved 3 September 2006 from http://arxiv.org/PS-cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411275v1.pdf.
214. Vakkari, P. & Talja, S. (2006). Searching for electronic journal articles to support academic tasks. A case study of the use of the Finnish National Electronic Library (finELib). Retrieved 20 July 2007 from Information Research, 12(1), paper 285 (page numbers unspecified) (http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/paper285.html).
215. Valiela, I. & Martinetto, P. (2005). The relative ineffectiveness of bibliographic search engines. Bioscience, 55(8), 688-92.
216. Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
217. Xu, Y., Tan, C. Y & Yang, L. (2006). Who will you ask? An empirical study of interpersonal task information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(12), 1666-77.
218. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372-82.
219. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J. & Amin, M. (2007). Do openaccess articles have greater citation impact? Retrieved 12 June 2007 from Journal of Infometrics (www.publishingresearch.net/Citations-SummaryPaper3_000.pdf.pdf.)
220. Greenall, S. (2006). Made in China. The Author, CXVIII(3), 89-91.
221. Han, B. & Zhang, K. (2004). Country profile: People's Republic of China. Psychology International, 15(2) 8-9.
222. Jacso, P. (2006). Google Scholar and The Scientist. Retrieved 6 January 2006 from www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso/extra/gs/.
223. Jain, A. K. (2005). Psychology in India. The Psychologist, 18(4), 206-8.
224. Rowlands, I. & Nicholas, D. (2007). The missing link: Journal usage metrics. ASLIB Proceedings, 59(3), 222-8.
225. Schwartz, G. J. & Kennicutt, R. C. (2004). Demographics and citation trends in astrophysical journal papers and pre-prints. 10 November. Retrieved 3 September 2006 from http://arxiv.org/PS-cache/astro-ph/pdf/0411/0411275v1.pdf.
226. Willinsky, J. (2005). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
227. Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 93-155. Retrieved 3 April 2007 from http://garfield.library. upenn.edu/bensman/bensmanegif2007.pdf.
228. Jacobs, N. (2006). Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
229. Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.
230. Park, JI-H. & Qin, J. (2007). Exploring the willingness of scholars to accept open access: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 38(2), 55-84.
231. Soloman, D. J. (2007). Medical Education Online: A case study of an open access journal in health professional education. Retrieved 15 August 2007 from Information Research, 12(2), paper 301 (page numbers unspecified). (http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2/ paper301.html).
232. Caruso, M. & Kennedy, H. (2004). Effects of a reviewer prompting strategy on timely manuscript reviews. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), 523-6.
233. Goodman, D., Dowson, S. & Yaremchuk, J. (2007). Open access and accuracy: Authorarchived manuscripts vs. published articles. Learned Publishing, 20(3), 203-15.
234. Hernon, P. & Schwartz, C. (2005). The unsung hero to a high-quality peer review journal. Library & Information Science Research, 27(4), 421-3.
235. Misak, A., Marusic, M. & Marusic, A. (2005). Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(2), 122-31.
236. Shashok, K. & Kerans, M. E. (2000). Translating the unedited science manuscript: Who fixes what shortcomings? In J. Chabas, M. Cases & R. Glaser (Eds.), Proceedings: 1st international conference on specialized translation (pp. 101-4). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
237. Ware, M. (2005). Online submission and peer review systems. Worthing: Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.
238. Wates, E. & Campbell, R. (2007). Author's version vs. publisher's version: An analysis of the copy-editing function. Learned Publishing, 20(2) 121-9.
239. Benos, J., Kirk, K. K. & Hall, J. E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(2), 47-52.
240. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. & Daniel, H-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226-38.
241. Brown, T. (2004). Stop whispering about peer review. The Scientist, 18(17), 8-9. Gade, P. A., Constanza, D. P. & Kaplan, J. D. (2006). Reviewing grant and contract proposals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 101-23). Washington: American Psychological Association.
242. Gade, P. A., Constanza, D. P. & Kaplan, J. D. (2006). Reviewing grant and contract proposals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 101-23). Washington: American Psychological Association
243. Godlee, F. & Jefferson, T. (Eds.) (2003). Peer review in health sciences (2nd edn). London: BMJ Publishing Group.
244. Godoy, L. A. (2006). Differences between experts and novices in the review of engineering papers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(1), 24-8.
245. Hojat, J. S., Gonnella, J. S. & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgement by the 'gatekeepers' of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75-96.
246. Hoppin, F. G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8), 1019-23.
247. Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87-92.
248. VandenBos, G. R., Frank-McNeil, J. & Amsel, J. (2006). Reviewing book proposals. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Reviewing scientific works in psychology (pp. 79-88). Washington: American Psychological Association.
249. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
250. Eisenberg, N., Thompson, M. S., Augir, S. & Stanley, E. H. (2002). 'Getting in' revisited: An analysis of manuscript characteristics, reviewers' ratings, and acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 997-1004.
251. Gosden, H. (2003). 'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
252. Kumashiro, K. K. (2005). Thinking collaboratively about the review process for journal article publication. Harvard Educational Review, 75(3), 257-85.
253. Lounds, J., Oakar, M., Knecht, K., Moran, M., Gibney, M. & Pressly, M. (2002). Journal editors' views on the criteria a paper must meet to be publishable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 338-47.
254. Spector, P. E. (1998). When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process. Retrieved 19 September 2006 from http:division.aomonline.org/ rm1998_forum_reviewers_become_authors.html.
255. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed). (2006). Reviewing scientific works in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
256. Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanon, R. & Pike, H. (2004). Style and content in emails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 369-78.
257. Hartley, J. (2005). Is academic writing masculine? Higher Education Review, 37(2), 53-62.
258. Hartley, J., Betts, L. J. & Murray, W. (2007). Gender and assessment: Differences, similarities and implications. Psychology Teaching Review, 13(1), 34-47.
259. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J. W. & Fox, C. (2003). Using new technology to assess the academic writing styles of male and female pairs and individuals. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33(3), 243-61.
260. Hartley, J., Sotto, E. & Pennebaker, J, W. (2002). Style and substance in psychology: Are influential papers more readable than less influential ones? Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 321-34.
261. Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R. & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-77.
262. Robson, J., Francis, B. & Read, B. (2002). Writes of passage: Stylistic features of male and female undergraduate history essays. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 351-62.
263. Rude, S.S., Gortner, E-M. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18(8), 1121-33.
264. Thompson, R. & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 193-208.
265. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131-50.
266. Martin, M. (1997). Emotional and cognitive effects of examination proximity in female and male students. Oxford Review of Education, 23(4), 479-86.
267. Peterson, S. (2006). Influence of gender on writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 311-23). New York: Guilford
268. Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
269. Madigan, R., Linton, P. & Johnson, S. (1996). The paradox of writing apprehension. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 295-307). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
270. Nelson, V. (1993). On writers' block: A new approach to creativity. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
271. Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
272. Wellington, J. (2003). Getting published: A guide for lecturers and researchers. London: Routledge.
273. Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Getting things done on time: Conquering procrastination. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping with stress: Effective people and processes (pp. 30-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
274. American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edn). Washington: American Psychological Association.
275. Abt, H. A. (2007). The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 72(1), 105-15.
276. Bahr, A. H. & Zemon, M. (2000). Collaborative authorship in the journal literature: Perspectives for academic librarians who wish to publish. College & Research Libraries, 61(5), 410-19.
277. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D-B. S. & Schrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755-85.
278. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J. W. & Fox, C. (2003). Using new technology to assess the academic writing styles of male and female pairs and individuals. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33(3), 243-61.
279. Lee, S. & Bozerman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702.
280. Lewison, G. & Hartley, J. (2005). What's in a title? Numbers of words and the presence of colons. Scientometrics, 63(2), 341-56.
281. McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M. & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19-25.
282. Morss, K. & Murray, R. (2001). Researching academic writing within a structured programme: Insights and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 35-52.
283. Murray, R. & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
284. Sharples, M. (1999). How we write: Writing as creative design. London: Routledge.
285. Wigg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C. & Birkinshaw, J. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26(6), 759-67.
286. Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T. & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing related metacognitions through a computerised writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373-91.
287. Speck, B. W., Johnson, T. R., Dice, C. P. & Heaton, L. B. (Eds.). (1999). Collaborative writing: An annotated bibliography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
288. Woods, P. (1999). Collaborative writing. Chapter 6 in Successful writing for qualitative researchers. (pp. 97-111). London: Routledge.
289. Wray, K. B. (2006). Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 37(3), 505-14.
290. Allison, P. D. & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(Autumn), 469-78.
291. Barjak, F. (2005). Research productivity in the Internet era. Series A: Discussion Paper 2005-1. Olten, C.H.4601: Solothurn University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland.
292. Barjak, F. (2006a). Research productivity in the Internet era. Scientometrics, 68(3), 343-60.
293. Barjak, F. (2006b). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(10), 1350-67.
294. Budd, J. M. (1995). Faculty publishing productivity: An institutional analysis and comparison with library and other measures. College & Research Libraries, 56(6), 547-54.
295. Creamer, E. G. & McGuire, S. P. (1998). Applying the cumulative advantage perspective to scholarly writers in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 73-82.
296. Cronin, B. & Meho, L. I. (2007). Timelines of creativity: A study of intellectual innovators in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(13), 1948-59.
297. Fonseca, L., Velloso, S., Wofchuck, S. & De Meis, L. (1997). The importance of human relationships in scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 39(2), 159-71.
298. Golden, J & Carstensen, F. V. (1992). Academic research productivity, department size and organisation: Further results, comment. Economics of Education Review, 11(2), 153-60.
299. Hartley, J. & Branthwaite, A. (1989). The psychologist as wordsmith: A questionnaire study of the writing strategies of productive British psychologists. Higher Education, 18, 423-52.
300. Hemlin, S. (1996). Social studies of the humanities: A case study of research conditions and performance in ancient history and classical archaeology, and English. Research Evaluation, April, 53-61.
301. Hemlin, S. & Gustafsson, M. (1996). Research production in the arts and humanities: A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics, 37(3), 417-32.
302. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2006). What does it take to be successful? Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(2), 135-52.
303. Holcolm, J. D., Selker, S. G. & Roush, R. E. (1990). Scholarly productivity: A regional study of physical therapy faculty in schools of allied health. Physical Therapy, 70(2), 118-24.
304. Kademani, B.S., Kalyane, V. L., Kumar, V. & Mohan, L (2005). Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status. Scientometrics, 62(2), 261-8.
305. Kotrlik, J. W., Bartlett, J. E., Higgins, C. C. & Williams, H. A. (2002). Factors associated with research productivity of agricultural education faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(2), 1-10.
306. Jungnickel, P. W. & Creswell, J. W. (1994). Workplace correlates and scholarly performance of clinical pharmacy faculty. Research in Higher Education, 35(2), 167-94.
307. Prpic, K. (1996). Scientific fields and eminent scientists productivity patterns and factors. Scientometrics, 37(3), 445-71.
308. Prpic, K. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27-58.
309. Randsdell, L. B., Dinger, M. K., Cooke, C. & Beske, S. (2001). Factors related to publication productivity in a sample of female health educators. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25(5), 469-80.
310. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.
311. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty production: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201-22.
312. Tschannen-Moran, T. & Nestor-Baker, N. (2004). The tacit knowledge of productive scholars in education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1484-511.
313. Walters, M., Hunter, S. & Giddens, E. (2007). Qualitative research on what leads to success in professional writing. Retrieved 20 August 2007 from European Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 1(2), July (page numbers unspecified) (www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl).
314. Zainab, A. N. (1999). Personal, academic and departmental correlates of research productivity: A review of the literature. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 4(2), 73-110.
315. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131-50.
316. Garfield, E. & Welljams-Dorof (1992). Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine, 13(2), 117-35.
317. Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creative life cycles in literature: Poets versus novelists, or conceptualists versus experimentalists? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(3), 133-9.
318. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.