YAZARLARIN AKADEMİK YAZI YAYIMLARKEN DÜZELTME SÜRECİNDE DİKKAT ETMESİ GEREKEN HUSUSLAR

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 17, 81 - 90, 15.11.2020

Halil Senturk

Öz

Authors receive corrections from editors and referees during the publication process of academic studies. Authors should pay attention to speed up this process and make it effective and efficient. In this study, it is aimed to determine the issues that the authors should take into consideration in the correction process when publishing academic papers. The main reasons for the research are the lack of manuscripts, including the issues that should be considered by the authors in the correction process, and the need for suggestions to provide good guidance to the authors. The main purpose of the study was how to manage a good correction process, and the findings of previous studies related to the field were also used while preparing the interview questions as a data collection tool. The aim of the study is also to determine the steps that the authors should follow in the correction phase of the academic writing process, and how they correct the feedback received from the editors. According to the findings of the research, all feedbacks from editors and referees should be read first in the correction process. Subsequently, each section of the manuscript should be corrected separately and sequentially, the division of work should be done firstly in multi-author studies, authors should create feedback-correction checklists, and multi-author studies should be checked by all authors. Finally, the feedback in all sections should be reviewed and evaluated by all authors, if the correction cannot be completed on time, additional time should be requested and the editor or referees should be contacted and informed about the corrections. Authors state that all feedback of editors and referees should be understood clearly during the correction process, and that it will be beneficial to use the language effectively and to get help from the people who have a good command of the language. However, research, author, interpreter, academic work and editor / referee communication should be provided and the process of correction should be consulted by experts or other people. According to the authors, very detailed information about the method used in the studies should be given and realistic findings and theoretical literature should be supported in order to base all the writings on the subject for solid reasons. When all these are evaluated thoroughly and carefully, the correction process can result in a very easy and more efficient positive result.

Anahtar Kelimeler

academic publication, correction proccess, feedback

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, B. (2001). Çeviride çevirmen seçimleri ışığında çeviri eleştirisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2).
• Baker, D. (2002). The peer review process in science education journals. Research in science Education, 32(2), 171- 180.
• Blocken, B. and F. Yardımcıoğlu (2017). "Çeviri: Gerçek Anlamda Korkunç Bir Makale Yazmak İçin 10 İpucu (10 Tips for Writing a Truly Terrible Journal Article)." Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi5(2).
• Bonk, C. J., (2007). F A Quick 30 Writing Tips For the Start of an Academic Career.
• Çivilibal, M. (2013). Bilimsel Bir Makale Nasıl Yazılır ve Yayımlanır?. Haseki Tıp Bülteni, 51(3), 85-88.
• Day, R. A., and Gülay Aşkar Altay (1996). "Bilimsel bir makale nasıl yazılır ve yayımlanır?".
• Ekmekçi, A. and E. Konaç (2009). "Bilimsel yazimin bazi temel kurallari." Türk Bilim Arastirma Vakfi2(1): 17-121.
• Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins.
• Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57(1), 27-42.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
• Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1238-1241.
• İnci, O. (2015). "Bilimsel Yayın Etiği." Türk Kütüphaneciliği29(2): 282-295.
• Karsli, M. B., et al. (2018). "Comparison of the discussion sections of PhD dissertations in educational technology: the case of Turkey and the USA." Scientometrics117(3): 1381-1403.
• Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2008). Writing a successful thesis or dissertation: Tips and strategies for students in the social and behavioral sciences. Corwin press.
• Ölçücü, M. T., et al. (2018). "How to Write and Publish a Scientific Article." Journal of Urological Surgery5(2): 63.
• Kılıç Öztürk, Y., Kalonya, V., Özbek, C., & Öztürk, F. Dergimizde Bilimsel Değerlendirme Süreci: 87 hakem raporunun açılımı. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Dergisi, 22(3), 181-186.
• Al, Umut., & Şencan, İ. (2016). Bilimsel iletişimin dikenli yolları: makalelerin yayın süreci üzerine bir değerlendirme. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 30(3), 449-470.
• Poyrazlı, Ş., & Şahin, A. E. (2010). Uluslararası dergiler için İngilizce makale yazma ve yayımlama sürecine ilişkin temel öneriler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151).
• Seckin, D. (2003). "Bilimsel bir makale nasil yazilir?[How to write a scientific paper?]."Dermatose2: 90-94.
• Silvia, P. J. (2009). "How to write a lot." American Psychological Association.
• Singer, A. J., & Hollander, J. E. (2009). How to write a manuscript. The Journal of emergency medicine, 36(1), 89-93.
• Sönmez, V. (2005). Bilimsel Araştırmalarda Yapılan Yanlışlıklar. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (18).
• Smith, M. C. (2004). "Advice for New Faculty Members: Getting Your Writing Program Started." Northern Illinois UniversityApril 12, 2004.
• Tok, M. and N. Gönülal (2016). "Akademik Yazma Sürecine İlişkin Bir İhtiyaç Analizi." Uluslararası Türkçe Eğitimi ve Öğretimi Dergisi: Kuram ve Uygulama1(1): 142-161.
• Wu, J. (2011). "Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond." Landscape Ecology26(10): 1345–1349.