Defining Quality of Scholarship
Publishing high quality scholarship is the raison d'être of any scientific Journal. But what do we mean by quality scholarship? In this editorial, I address the issue from two perspectives - the individual paper level and the broader whole-volume scale.
Individual papers
There are at least four dimensions of quality associated with individual papers: innovation, topic focus, rigour and communication effectiveness.
Innovation is a measure of novelty, newness and creativity and of the incremental contribution to the body of knowledge in the discipline. Innovative contributions can be made by:
Analysing new situations with proven methods. Asikainen's paper on the use of simulation modelling to predict system performance in barge transport of wood in Finland or Pyles and Lions' use of finite element analysis to predict spar tree performance in this issue are examples of this.
Development of new methods to solve existing or emerging problems. Two examples of this are the papers by Holden et al. assessing GPS performance across a variety of forest canopy conditions and the technical note by Douglas and Cochrane outlining a simple method to help identify stream crossings with GIS technology.
Develop new insight into a topic by synthesizing what is known, identifying gaps and suggesting areas for further study. The paper by Usitalo and Orland outlining key issues in the use of virtual reality technology for forest planning is an example of this kind of scholarship.
The topic focus is a key determinant of relevance for most readers. The Journal has a wide scope in terms of topics, ranging in this issue from GIS and virtual reality information technology, through harvesting system modelling on islands and finite element analysis of spar trees. It touches on ergonomics (Bates et al. paper) and worker risk exposure in logging (Sullman and Kirk paper) and compares two approaches to estimating timber yields using advanced statistical methods (Malinen et al. paper).
Rigour as an index of the reliability of the results and conclusions presented in papers is valued by all readers. It is achieved by appropriate choices and uses of methods, careful description of the conditions under which experiments were conducted, comprehensive review of relevant literature, thorough analysis of the results, and thoughtful recognition of the assumptions and reliability of the findings. The paper by Pyles and Lyons analysing the behaviour of unguyed spar trees in cable logging is a good example of a rigorous approach to solving a problem.
Communication effectiveness reflects the ease with which the reader can glean important information from the paper. This is based partly on appropriate use of language and traditional forms of presenting precisedata (e.g., tables) and relationships (e.g., formulae, graphs). It is also based on a clear linkage between stated goals, results and conclusions. A critical element is the degree to which we can differentiate between an author's results and the inferences they draw from them.
Looking at whole volumes
From the"whole volume" perspective, we can identify at least three key quality factors: form of scholarship, relevance and geographical context.
The form of scholarship refers to the kind of papers that are published, ranging from defining new theoretical frameworks to guide scientific enquiry or professional practice, presenting results of scientific experiments and reviewing the state of existing knowledge and identifying gaps. Each of these types of scholarship is valuable in its own right, but also complements the others. Our working hypothesis is that to optimize quality of any volume of the Journal, a balance must be achieved with respect to the proportion of articles in each of these categories.
Relevance is a measure of the potential usefulness to readers, which in the Journal's case, includes both academics and practitioners. These two groups value different aspects of scholarship: the former being more interested in elaborate, explicit description of experimental protocols as well as the theoretical basis for experiments; whereas the practitioners are more concerned with identifying the implications of findings on current practices and policies. Here again a balance must be struck between providing a variety of content for the varied readership of the journal without losing topical focus relevant to forest engineering.
Given the wide international distribution of both the readership of the Journal and its contributors, geographical focus is a key factor in determining relevance. The geographical context in which research is carried out is a strong proxy for many bio-physical, social and regulatory factors that affect forest engineering practice and enquiry. Making theoretical frameworks explicit is one way for the Journal to compensate for geographical variation since they are more `portable' than specific research findings. Making key regional factors (e.g., local regulatory issues) explicit in papers is also an important means of helping readers give appropriate weight to findings from different geographical areas.
The Journal is currently going through a strategic planning process which involves defining forest engineering scholarship quality criteria, assessing our past performance against these criteria, and ensuring we strive toward higher quality levels in the future. To this end, we would like to hear from you about the following:
We would very much like to hear your answers to these questions. You can contact us electronically (or in writing at the address at the end of the next page. Your answers will be incorporated in our strategic planning process.
Pierre Zundel
Managing Editor