GUIDE TO ASPIRING AUTHORS: GETTING STARTED IN GEOSCIENCE EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIP AND JGE PUBLICATION

Unlike other sub-disciplines in the geosciences, the vast majority of college geoscience curricula do not include formal training for those interested in geoscience education scholarship (Feig, 2013). Therefore, it is challenging for formally trained geoscientist to transform their exemplary teaching practices and original geoscience curriculum into solid geoscience education manuscripts. Nevertheless, the discipline of geoscience education continues to mature, becoming evermore rigorous and scholarly. This maturation is reflected in the rising expectations associated with Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) manuscript submissions. Over the past 5 years we have moved away from ‘data-free’ descriptive articles and towards more robust, evidence-based Curriculum & Instruction (C&I) papers. We also have seen an explosion in empirical Research papers that employ rigorous quantitative and qualitative research methods commonly used in education and social sciences research. Yet, it is clear from informal feedback from members of the geoscience community, and from the fact that few NAGT members regularly published in JGE (St. John, 2012), that we need to do more to support the many excellent educators and traditional geoscientists who are interested in pursuing geoscience education scholarship and publication. Therefore, based on our collective observations of common impediments to publication that we see in submitted manuscripts, the Editors of JGE have developed a seven step model (St. John, et al., in press 2013) to guide novice geoscience education scholars towards publication. The emphasis is largely on C&I papers, as that is the JGE submission category that most naturally aligns to the “gateway” descriptive paper, however much of the advice applies to Research papers as well. The model addresses the following points: (1) putting one’s work in a literature-based context; (2) providing evidence of effectiveness; (3) obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or exemption; (4) the value of collaboration; (5) finding balance between complete and concise project descriptions; (6) describing the broader implications of study results; and (7) making the most of reviewer feedback. The rational for this model and supporting details will be presented.