SciFlow is an online editor for academics. They have recently updated and expanded the documentation, so should you ever get stuck, here’s how to. That said, the interface is pretty intuitive, so I’m not sure you’ll ever need to navigate to the support pages for basic editing.
There are some useful hints, though, like using zbib (Zotero) with Sciflow (instructions here). This gets pretty close to Authorea’s citation feature, and is also useful for collaborative texts (and doesn’t suffer from the slowness of direct Zotero/Mendeley connections if you have a large database of references).
The SciFlow team have also recently updated the Templates feature:
There are many journal styles to choose from. It’s not quite (yet) like typeset.io, but the social sciences are not well covered by typeset anyway. SciFlow offers some useful templates, but in most cases, it’s necessary to do some finishing before submitting to a journal. On the other hand, there’s a template for minutes — that’s useful for anyone working in a team, and who isn’t?
In most cases the generic templates will do, including the SciFlow templates which support many common citation styles.
Today we’ve discussed open access options for migration studies. Here’s an attempt to provide an overview. In this list, a journal is “compliant” if it allows publishing a post-print within 6 months of publication on a non-profit or insitutional repository (green road). This includes fully open access journals. Payments in hybrid journals are not considered compliant. Information on compliance as of 31 October 2019, taken from http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php; impact factors as listed on the journal websites, SJR from Scimago. All information is provided without warranty.
- Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS), IF=2.297, SJR=1.78, not OA compliant (18m)
- Ethnic and Racial Studies (ERS), IF=1.268, SJR=1, not OA compliant (18m)
- International Migration Review (IMR), IF=1.738, SJR=1.52, OA compliant
- Population, Space and Place (PSP), IF=2.279, SJR=1.78, not OA compliant (24m)
- International Migration (IM), IF=0.881, SJR=0.61, not OA compliant (12m)
- Citizenship Studies, IF=1.378, SJR=1.07, not OA compliant (18m)
- Ethnicities, IF=1.066, SJR=0.55, OA compliant
- Journal of International Migration and Integration (JIMI), no IF, SJR=0.61, not OA compliant (12m)
- Migration Studies, IF=1.756, SJR=0.35, not OA compliant (24m)
- Comparative Migration Studies (CMS), no IF, no SJR, OA compliant
- Migration Letters, no IF, SJR=0.45, OA compliant
- Demographic Research, IF=1.320, SJR=1.27, OA compliant
- Demography, IF=2.489, SJR=2.79, not OA compliant (12m)
- DuBois Review, IF=1.383, no SJR, OA compliant
- Ethnicity & Health, IF=2.671, SJR=0.74, OA compliant
- Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, IF=1.037, SJR=0.84, not OA compliant (18m)
- International Journal of Intercultural Relations, IF=1.713, SJR=0.7, not OA compliant (24m)
- IZA Journal of Development and Migration, no IF, no SJR, OA compliant
- Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, IF=0.891, SJR=0.65, not OA compliant (18m)
- Journal of Population Economics (JPE), IF=1.259, SJR=1.58, not OA compliant (12m)
- Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics (JREP), no IF, no SJR, unknown OA compliance (not in RoMEO)
- Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, no IF, SJR=0.59, not OA compliant (12m)
- Journal of Refugee Studies, IF=1.737, SJR=0.88, not OA compliant (24m)
- Migration and Society, no IF, no SJR, unknown OA compliance
- Nordic Journal of Migration Research, no IF, no SJR, OA compliant
- Patterns of Prejudice, IF=0.667, SJR=0.54, not OA compliant (18m)
- Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, no IF, not SJR, unknown OA compliance (not in RoMEO)
- Third World Quarterly, IF=2.156, SJR=1.32, not OA compliant (18m)
- Global Networks, IF=3.018, SJR=1.51, not OA compliant (24m)
You may also consider peer-review experiences on https://scirev.org/
I am not covering disciplinary journals here (e.g. Social Inclusion, Sociological Science, Politics and Governance, Research & Politics, or the innovative OLH). Don’t hesitate to mention ommissions and errors in the comments.
This deserves mentioning: The collaborating writing service SciFlow now supports Zotero. You can find instructions here and here; all you need is an account with Zotero for syncing. Like the Mendeley link they provide, fetching references from the connected (Zotero) account can be a bit sluggish if you have a large library. If you’re a student writing up a term paper or a Master thesis, you will probably not notice this. If you have a more substantial collection of references, you will notice this. A downside of the Zotero link is that it searches your complete library, including notes and extracted annotations if you have this. I would have liked a more selective sync to speed up things.
So I’m still waiting for a reference search like in Authorea or ZoteroBib. With the many export styles to choose from, SciFlow easily beats Google Docs, and it works in a limited way on a mobile phone (you can log in and edit the text, but formatting etc. are now disabled in recent versions).
The other day I was reviewing a paper that looked quite interesting, but unfortunately was written in such poor English that I could not really understand what was going on. I felt sorry for the author(s). I then recalled a recent discussion with a colleague of mine about how important so-called transferable skills are for students: We know that most of them won’t end up in academia, so stuff like critical thinking, structuring an argument, or reading a regression table a are pretty important. Among these, coherent and comprehensible English must rank very high. For those who stay in academia, I’d argue that it’s the most important skill, because it’s central to communicating with other researchers and having your work understood. Only this way can others build on what we do. Ironically, however, teaching English is typically not a focus at universities, if it is done at all. Like so many things, we just kind of assume students (have to figure out how to) do it.
Image: CC-by-nc Moiggi Interactive
The other day I was finishing off supplementary material for an accepted article, and had a major panic for half an hour. It all started with my adding a simple frequency table of the outcome variable: a binary variable. When I checked the PDF it turned out that I have miscoded the outcome variable (at least this is what it looked like) — instead of 60% 1s, I had 40% 1s. What to do? No, I didn’t think the substantive results would have been completely different, so I could have done major work on the page proof, replacing every number in the paper. For a moment I considered ‘unseeing’ what I discovered and bet on the likely case that nobody ever would replicate my findings despite my making all the code and data available. I could even have removed that line where I promise the replication code during the page proof. Ethically defensible this would not have been. Retraction passed my mind. Fortunately, it turned out that there was a benign reason. After going back to and quadruple checking the questionnaire, the raw data, and all the recoding and code, it turned out that I simply wrongly labelled that table of the outcome variable. Relief and feeling silly for panicking.