Integrated Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Review of the Literature

In this systematic review of literature that spans 1975–2015, integrated reading and writing interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) or students with academic difficulties were evaluated to understand the extant research, identify encouraging practices, and guide future research. Ten studies met inclusion criteria and each study was evaluated according to the relevant What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards. Eight of the 10 investigations were conducted with students in grades 4–8. While only 4 of the 10 studies met WWC design with or without reservations, results from these studies are encouraging. Study findings suggest several areas for immediate future research relating to methodological and treatment variables and considerations for classroom instruction in order to respond to advanced expectations for the successful integration of reading and writing across subjects. In addition to employing stronger experimental designs and additional replications of encouraging studies, future research should explore the utility of integrated reading and writing interventions with secondary students with who have academic difficulties.     

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.     

Counselor educator workload and burnout in the era of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic brought disruption to teaching and other aspects of workload in higher education. The current study sampled 126 counselor educators about workload, compassion satisfaction, burnout, and job satisfaction. Results indicated that faculty workload and administrative responsibilities increased for counselor educators during the pandemic without adequate compensation or support.     

‘So she has been educated by a vulgar,silly, conceited French governess!’ Social anxieties,satirical portraits,and the eighteenth‐century French instructor

Maria Edgeworth’s pedagogical short stories ‘Mademoiselle Panache’ (1800, 1801) and ‘The Good French Governess’ (1801) portray contrasting French instructors, and illustrate a transformation in English girls’ education in French at the end of the eighteenth century. While ‘Mademoiselle Panache’ looks back to the disingenuous French instructors of eighteenth‐century comedy, demonstrating English anxieties about the supposedly corrupting influence of the French on young girls, ‘The Good French Governess’ shows the positive influence of French émigrés in late eighteenth‐century French instruction. In contrast to critical assumptions that the English public’s outraged response to the French Revolution terminated English interest in all things French, these and other contemporary texts show that English girls’ education in French was not diminished by anti‐Jacobin attitudes, and indeed flourished into the nineteenth century.     

The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: Three science fields

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.     

Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study

Objective:A growing volume of studies address methods for performing systematic reviews of qualitative studies. One such methodological aspect is the conceptual framework used to structure the review question and plan the search strategy for locating relevant studies. The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the retrieval potential of each element of conceptual frameworks in qualitative systematic reviews in the health sciences.Methods:The presence of elements from conceptual frameworks in publication titles, abstracts, and controlled vocabulary in CINAHL and PubMed was analyzed using a set of qualitative reviews and their included studies as a gold standard. Using a sample of 101 publications, we determined whether particular publications could be retrieved if a specific element from the conceptual framework was used in the search strategy.Results:We found that the relative recall of conceptual framework elements varied considerably, with higher recall for patient/population (99%) and research type (97%) and lower recall for intervention/phenomenon of interest (74%), outcome (79%), and context (61%).Conclusion:The use of patient/population and research type elements had high relative recall for qualitative studies. However, other elements should be used with great care due to lower relative recall.     

The Reference Return Ratio

The paper introduces a new journal impact measure called The Reference Return Ratio (3R). Unlike the traditional Journal Impact Factor (JIF), which is based on calculations of publications and citations, the new measure is based on calculations of bibliographic investments (references) and returns (citations). A comparative study of the two measures shows a strong relationship between the 3R and the JIF. Yet, the 3R appears to correct for citation habits, citation dynamics, and composition of document types – problems that typically are raised against the JIF. In addition, contrary to traditional impact measures, the 3R cannot be manipulated ad infinitum through journal self-citations.     

How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists

Questionable journals represent an increasing problem in scholarly communication. The warnings about such journals are plentiful, but the methods used to identify them vary a great deal and make it difficult to accurately determine which journals are fraudulent or simply of low quality. This article presents an overview of the existing frameworks for identifying questionable journals and discussions around them. Most of the frameworks rely on describing the journals under investigation according to a set of criteria, and some can even be turned into a metric or mechanism. The development of frameworks for identifying questionable journals has so far been characterized by a great diversity in format, length, and content. Generally, the frameworks come with little information on development, validation, and reliability. The consequences of prolific tool development are discussed, and a recommendation for testing such frameworks is proposed.