Page 1

Publication Process for Manaaki Taha Moana The reason for establishing this explicit process is that we need to ensure cultural safety, academic robustness, and fairness in the publication process. This process should also be read in conjunction with the Authorship Guidelines. Figure 1 describes the six steps in the publication process (refer to Figure 1): Step 1: Notify your Intent to Write a Publication. In most cases this shouldn’t be a ‘surprise’ to any of the MTM team members as we should have discussed it in our RMG meetings. Occasionally however someone will come up with an ‘out-of-the-blue’ idea for a publication, and particularly in these circumstances we should make all team members aware of their intentions to write such a publication, by first of all notifying the Project Manager (Derrylea Hardy). To this end, a one-page summary (or shorter) should also be distributed to the MTM team members to see if others want to be involved in writing the paper. There should be room for some discussion about the appropriateness of writing the publication – it could for example be inconsistent with the project Principles/Kaupapa, or ‘cut across’ another publication that someone else had in mind. Step 2: Finalise MTM members to be Involved in the Publication. Within 2 weeks of the notification in Step 1, it will be decided who will write and be involved in the publication. Hopefully this will be worked out by consensus and collegial discussion. If this is not achieved by consensus, the final decision will be made by the MTM Science Leader, in direct consultation with the original author. Step 3: Resolve any Issues Arising from Step 1. In MTM we will operate a policy of not restricting publications that can be produced, as long as they support MTM’s vision and Principles/Kaupapa. That said, however, there may need to be some discussion of any possible ‘conflict of interest’, possible duplication with other research publications and so forth. Step 4: Research for the Publication. This may or may not take place before Step One. It needs to be recognised that under our ‘Authorship’ guidelines that authors on the publication should not only include those that wrote the publication, but also all those that materially contributed the research being published. Step 5: Writing the Publication. The research should be written up, and the authorship added to the manuscript. Re-writing/redrafting by the MTM team may add to the authorship list, as we need to take account of the ideas and other contributions made by the internal reviewers. Step 6: Internal Review – Cultural. It is very important in Manaaki Taha Moana that all of our written outputs undergo Cultural Ceview. In general, the Cultural Review should be strongly guided by the MTM research programme Principles/Kaupapa. Specifically this means making sure: (a) from an iwi/hapu perspective what is written is correct and appropriate 1

(b) that there has been no false attributions – e.g. writing something like “Ngata Raukawa think.......”, if they do not think this. (c) permission has been gained to make public iwi/hapu knowledge. (d) consent has been given to quote iwi/hapu members, and consent forms have been filled out. (e) any other matter that may offend or falsely portray iwi/hapu involved in this research programme be removed or re-written. There will be two categories of cultural review: (a) Short Review. This is where the publication only contains a very small amount or very general, Maori content. The decision to undertake a short review will be made by: Huhana and Murray (for Ngāti Raukawa) or Tracey and Murray (for Tauranga Moana iwi) . A short review should take no longer than 3 days. (b) Long Review. This is where there is significant Matauranga Maori and other Maori content. The decision to undertake a longer review will be made by: Huhana and Murray (for Ngāti Raukawa) or Tracey and Murray (for Tauranga Moana iwi) Huhana Smith will be responsible for Ngāti Raukawa cultural reviews and Tracey Ngotoko will be responsible for Tauranga Moana iwi. They may wish to be personally responsible for this or delegate to other persons. The Cultural Review needs to make it very clear to the author what exactly needs to be changed in the report before it is published/released. It is not adequate to make only generally comments on the text, without specifically showing how matters can be corrected. We should have ‘zero-tolerance’ for a critical approach that is destructive rather than constructive. Step 6: Internal Review – Scientific. There will be two categories of internal scientific review: (a) Voluntary (or Semi-Compulsory): The extent of internal scientific review depends on the nature of the publication. For example, many publications have their own ‘external review’ processes – e.g. academic journals, books, conference papers. It may be ‘over-kill’ to internally review those outputs before they are submitted to external review by the publishers. However, it is ‘good practice’ to get team members and other colleagues to at least informally review publications before submitting them to an external publisher. This especially applies to inexperienced authors. (b) Compulsory Review – For MTM Monographs: It is important that our Manaaki Taha Moana Monograph Series undergo rigorous scientific and academic review. It is recommended that at least two external reviews be sought from “experts” in the field. Then, the authors should revise the monographs to take account of the comments received from external reviewers. In most cases this should lead to publication of the monograph, but the Science Leader preserves the right not to publish a monograph in the MTM series, if it fails to reach the required standard even after re-writing. Step 7: Publication. The MTM monographs will be immediately published, following successful external review. Other publications will need to go through the appropriate review process for that type of publication. 2

Figure 1: Publication Process for Manaaki Taha Moana

Step One ‘Notify Intent” to Write a Publication

Step Two Finalise team to Write Publication

Step Three Resolve Any Issues Arising from Step One

Max 2 weeks

Max 2 weeks

Step Four Research for the Publication

Step Five Writing the Publication Decide on Authorship


Re-Write Step Six Internal Review Cultural Review

Scientific Review 1-4 weeks

Step Seven Publication Other Publications with their own review process

MTM Monographs (externally reviewed)


Decision-Making Processes The primary mode for making decisions on these making should be by consensus. If this cannot be achieved, (and in my experience this is very rare), the final decision will be made the 2 Research Team Leaders (Huhana, Tracey) for cultural issues, and all other matters by the Science Leader (Murray). The publication review process should not be seen as punitive, rather one of helping the authors to publish material that is up to the required academic standard and culturally safe and appropriate. A number of time limits have been specified to make sure the process does not get ‘bogged down’:  2 weeks to final writing team from notification of intent to publish.  2 weeks to deal with ‘other issues’ from notification of intent to publish.  3 days for Short Cultural Review.  4 weeks for Long cultural Review. Scope of the Publication Process This applies to all publications:  that are funded by the Manaaki Taha Moana Project.  that are specified in the MTM research plans and associated sub-contracts.  that make specific and significant reference to for Ngāti Raukawa and Tauranga Moana iwi.

Murray Patterson, Science Leader, Manaaki Taha Moana 31/3/2011



Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you