{"id":278,"date":"2021-12-01T15:18:21","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T14:18:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogg.uit.no\/eni081\/?p=278"},"modified":"2022-09-21T11:15:42","modified_gmt":"2022-09-21T09:15:42","slug":"third-article-published-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogg.uit.no\/eni081\/2021\/12\/01\/third-article-published-today\/","title":{"rendered":"Third article published today!"},"content":{"rendered":"

When it rains, it pours!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

(I know that the photo doesn’t match the text, but I couldn’t resist, since this was last night’s display of northern lights!)<\/p>\n

After working hard on my PhD for a little over 3 years, the three articles that I’ve written so far (together with co-authors) were all published within the last 6 months! The latest was published today – here’s the reference:<\/p>\n

Nierenberg, E., & Dahl, T. I. (2021). Is information literacy ability, and metacognition of that ability, related to interest, gender or education level? A cross-sectional study of higher education students. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science<\/em>, 1-13. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/09610006211058907<\/a><\/p>\n

If you’d like to read it, just click on the link in the reference.<\/p>\n

Thank you, Tove (on left), for your co-authorship!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This article was not originally planned as part of my PhD, but seemed to be an easy one to write at a certain point, given the data that we had collected. Well, it turned out to not be as easy as expected!<\/p>\n

The first version was sent to a journal in January 2020, just after the storming of the US Capitol, when the abundance of misinformation regarding the presidential election in November 2021 was having catastrophic consequences. (This, by the way, underlines the importance of being information literate – knowing how to critically evaluate your sources of information, including certain presidents!) Anyway, the journal rejected the article on the grounds that it was not appropriate for its audience.<\/p>\n

We then made some minor changes and sent it off to another international peer-reviewed journal for consideration. After several months, the article was also rejected by this journal.\u00a0 You can probably imagine how discouraging such rejections feel. \ud83d\ude41 The reviewers, however, wrote 7 pages (yes, 7!) of comments and suggestions for how to improve and focus the article. So every cloud has a silver lining!<\/p>\n

While reading their remarks I contemplated scrapping the article, since extensive changes would be necessary and it felt hopeless to continue. But since I’d already put so much effort into it – and thanks to Tove’s more-or-less constant encouragement – I decided to revise it.<\/p>\n

After making revisions – which basically meant rewriting most of the introduction, and other sections as well – we submitted it to a third journal, the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science<\/em>. This time, the article was accepted for publication, with only minor revisions. So after only a few rounds of further editing, the article was finally published today. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n

Jeez, what a lengthy and demanding process! But I’m glad now, since the hard work finally paid off. And since the article improved with each revision, the end result is quite good, I believe!<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it can sometimes feel like the goal of working in academia is solely to get published – “publish or perish” as they say. This is a shame, since the goal really should be to learn, make discoveries, share results, and make a contribution to the field.<\/p>\n

Here are some things that I learned when doing the research and writing this article:<\/p>\n