Hi Chris,

thanks, but rather than misreading Karel's (slightly 'bitter') 
suggestion, I meant to 'add to' it. I was saying that local 
'student-centred' digital peer reviewed journals do exist (with 
double blind refereeing), and they do fulfill the functions I 
suggested quite nicely. Further, they are read by other candidates 
and early career researchers, if not other senior academics as well 
(I believe not all the reviewers are candidates), and surely this 
must be a good thing for those who will eventually become, and 
perhaps replace when they retire (!), the 'well-regarded editors' of 
existing 'top flight journals'.

But, to address your original inquiry as to what might be done to 
support and prepare candidates, as another Antipodean, I concur with 
Edgar's comment about the cost of travelling and presenting at 
conferences, and his suggestion for a 'High Quality - Free 
Registration - No need to travel' option. But the catch, as 
previously explained, is still that it adds to the workload (and 
cost) for conference organisers and reviewers.

Another idea is student-centred guided doctoral writing groups, 
initially facilitated by a published, senior academic with editorial 
expertise, but moving towards self-sufficiency at later stages. I was 
fortunate enough to be a member almost from the beginning of my 
candidature, and have benefited enormously from having four other PhD 
candidates and an academic other than my supervisors be familiar with 
my developing research, and I with theirs. It is a staged, but fluid 
process, whereby we meet every fortnight for two hours, prior to 
which two students send the writing they want critiqued, along with 
the points they wish the group to address. This includes writing at 
various developmental stages (in my case, the 'so what?' question was 
heartily debated which contributed to a major change in focus), 
abstract writing, thesis chapter outlines, conference papers, as well 
as focused writing techniques, such as free writing. I tape the 
feedback, but generally, the robust discussions are usually 
sufficient and have contributed to much stronger writing, in my 
experience. This kind of group has been documented in the doctoral 
education literature through academics and co-authored papers by 
group members (see below) and becomes in essence, peer review for 
work in progress at a micro level.

This represents a structured initiative at a local institutional 
(faculty) level, the aim being to focus on the idea of 'research 
through writing' and the importance of the process of writing for 
doctoral research, as much as the development of written outcomes 
that may eventually be published. Combined with faculty and 
university-wide (multi-disciplinary) local and national conferences 
for doctoral candidates and early career researchers, these are 
pedagogic processes that prepare us before we even get to the journal 
writing stage.

I trust that this is in the scope of your initial question?
best wishes, teena

Aitchison, C. (2003) Thesis writing circles. Hong Kong Journal of 
Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 97-115.

Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: problems and 
pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.

Boud, D. & Lee, A. (2005) Peer learning as pedagogic discourse for 
research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-515.

Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic 
identity: research development as local practice. Studies in Higher 
Education, 28, (2).

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 and Development, 25(1), 19-35.

Spigelman, C. (1999) Habits of mind: historical configurations of 
textual ownership in peer writing groups. College Composition and 
Communication, 49(2), 234-255.


>teena clerke wrote:
>>Your suggestion, a 'digital peer-reviewed academic journal' is 
>>quite appropriate, not too intimidating and performs the functions 
>>of dissemination, 'learning the ropes' and generating constructive 
>>feedback
>Hi Teena,
>
>Actually I think you have misread Karel. Although he has rather 
>frivolously suggested that each student starts their own 
>peer-reviewed journal, digital journals, especially those on 
>BiomedCentral, are every bit as serious as paper ones. BiomedCentral 
>was set up to provide an alternative to the very expensive and 
>exclusive (in intellectual property terms) established academic 
>publishers, it is notable that research funding bodies support 
>Biomed and other open-access publishers and are happy to meet the 
>publishing costs per article mentioned by Karel to ensure open 
>access to the research results they have paid for.
>
>Unfortunately, running a journal (or a conference) is a difficult, 
>time-consuming and expensive task, that's the main reason why there 
>has not been a flood of new online journals despite the much lower 
>"printing" costs. It is nearly as time-consuming and expensive to 
>run a journal with relatively weak peer review, the only way to make 
>it easier and cheaper is to have no peer review. I sometimes wonder 
>which well-regarded editors have pulled off this trick.
>
>Actually the open review journals of BiomedCentral are very scary 
>indeed for some people because every version of your paper, and 
>every comment by referees and the wider audience is permanently on 
>record for the whole world to see. You do not go into that arena 
>lightly.
>
>best
>Chris