Discussion: View Thread

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

I am also surprised by the LME editors' response to your third paper.  Although I haven't seen Part 3, the first two were excellent explorations of project conflicts and resolution methods -- methods that I have also used successfully.

Reviewers sometimes mistakenly recommend a paper's rejection because they misunderstand the journal's aims and audiences. It's up to the editor to recognize those mistakes and make a correct decision. In the case of Part 3, it appears the editor has made a mistake, perhaps thinking that she/he can modify the aims of a journal unilaterally, instead of with the concurrence of the appropriate ASCE governing authority.

You probably asked for clarification of "these types of papers." Did you get a reasonable reply?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Thanks William!

Q. "Did you get a reasonable reply?"

A. LME Editor: "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So William, I find that type of attitude not much different then that of ABET.

Despite the clear evidence why at least 60% of projects fail:

• Successful Projects Routinely = Mastery, Technical  Matters X  Mastery, Sociocultural Matters.

Seems like 'evolution' isn't working.

Maybe its time for the "Other __ evolution (?)"

Q. Who and when will someone in charge say "The King is Not wearing clothes!"

Cheers,

Bill

Cheers,

Bill

I am also surprised by the LME editors' response to your third paper.  Although I haven't seen Part 3, the first two were excellent explorations of project conflicts and resolution methods -- methods that I have also used successfully.

Reviewers sometimes mistakenly recommend a paper's rejection because they misunderstand the journal's aims and audiences. It's up to the editor to recognize those mistakes and make a correct decision. In the case of Part 3, it appears the editor has made a mistake, perhaps thinking that she/he can modify the aims of a journal unilaterally, instead of with the concurrence of the appropriate ASCE governing authority.

You probably asked for clarification of "these types of papers." Did you get a reasonable reply?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

If that's all they said, Bill, you can appeal the decision. The ASCE authors' guide says:

An author who disagrees with a review decision may appeal it by contacting the Journal's Editorial Coordinator within 12 months from the decision date. The Coordinator will forward the appeal to the Managing Editor of the journal who will consult with the Chief Editor of the journal to determine if the appeal is valid. If the appeal is deemed valid, the Managing Editor will send the submission back to the authors through the Editorial Manager system to upload their appeal letter with their original submission to be rereviewed. If it is again declined, the decision may be appealed to the appropriate division, council, or institute. The division, council, or institute's decision is final.

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2023 10:36 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Journal Article Value to CE Practitioners

Thanks William!

Q. "Did you get a reasonable reply?"

A. LME Editor: "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So William, I find that type of attitude not much different then that of ABET.

Despite the clear evidence why at least 60% of projects fail:

• Successful Projects Routinely = Mastery, Technical  Matters X  Mastery, Sociocultural Matters.

Seems like 'evolution' isn't working.

Maybe its time for the "Other __ evolution (?)"

Q. Who and when will someone in charge say "The King is Not wearing clothes!"

Cheers,

Bill

Cheers,

Bill

I am also surprised by the LME editors' response to your third paper.  Although I haven't seen Part 3, the first two were excellent explorations of project conflicts and resolution methods -- methods that I have also used successfully.

Reviewers sometimes mistakenly recommend a paper's rejection because they misunderstand the journal's aims and audiences. It's up to the editor to recognize those mistakes and make a correct decision. In the case of Part 3, it appears the editor has made a mistake, perhaps thinking that she/he can modify the aims of a journal unilaterally, instead of with the concurrence of the appropriate ASCE governing authority.

You probably asked for clarification of "these types of papers." Did you get a reasonable reply?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Thanks for your advice William.

Upon refelction though, why have ASCE Editors changed course navigation from the days when articles from

experienced engineers in practice were sought, i.e., to be shared in publication?

• Suggestion:Rather than challenge the academics, why not initiate a journal for practicing enginners? And of course we would invite academics in as well.

We must always have space for all.

Cheers,

Bill

If that's all they said, Bill, you can appeal the decision. The ASCE authors' guide says:

An author who disagrees with a review decision may appeal it by contacting the Journal's Editorial Coordinator within 12 months from the decision date. The Coordinator will forward the appeal to the Managing Editor of the journal who will consult with the Chief Editor of the journal to determine if the appeal is valid. If the appeal is deemed valid, the Managing Editor will send the submission back to the authors through the Editorial Manager system to upload their appeal letter with their original submission to be rereviewed. If it is again declined, the decision may be appealed to the appropriate division, council, or institute. The division, council, or institute's decision is final.

------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, D.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS

Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2023 10:36 PM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Journal Article Value to CE Practitioners

Thanks William!

Q. "Did you get a reasonable reply?"

A. LME Editor: "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So William, I find that type of attitude not much different then that of ABET.

Despite the clear evidence why at least 60% of projects fail:

• Successful Projects Routinely = Mastery, Technical  Matters X  Mastery, Sociocultural Matters.

Seems like 'evolution' isn't working.

Maybe its time for the "Other __ evolution (?)"

Q. Who and when will someone in charge say "The King is Not wearing clothes!"

Cheers,

Bill

Cheers,

Bill

I am also surprised by the LME editors' response to your third paper.  Although I haven't seen Part 3, the first two were excellent explorations of project conflicts and resolution methods -- methods that I have also used successfully.

Reviewers sometimes mistakenly recommend a paper's rejection because they misunderstand the journal's aims and audiences. It's up to the editor to recognize those mistakes and make a correct decision. In the case of Part 3, it appears the editor has made a mistake, perhaps thinking that she/he can modify the aims of a journal unilaterally, instead of with the concurrence of the appropriate ASCE governing authority.

You probably asked for clarification of "these types of papers." Did you get a reasonable reply?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Thanks William!

Q. "Did you get a reasonable reply?"

A. LME Editor: "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So William, I find that type of attitude not much different then that of ABET.

Despite the clear evidence why at least 60% of projects fail:

• Successful Projects Routinely = Mastery, Technical  Matters X  Mastery, Sociocultural Matters.

Seems like 'evolution' isn't working.

Maybe its time for the "Other __ evolution (?)"

Q. Who and when will someone in charge say "The King is Not wearing clothes!"

Cheers,

Bill

Cheers,

Bill

I am also surprised by the LME editors' response to your third paper.  Although I haven't seen Part 3, the first two were excellent explorations of project conflicts and resolution methods -- methods that I have also used successfully.

Reviewers sometimes mistakenly recommend a paper's rejection because they misunderstand the journal's aims and audiences. It's up to the editor to recognize those mistakes and make a correct decision. In the case of Part 3, it appears the editor has made a mistake, perhaps thinking that she/he can modify the aims of a journal unilaterally, instead of with the concurrence of the appropriate ASCE governing authority.

You probably asked for clarification of "these types of papers." Did you get a reasonable reply?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?

Thanks for this post Mitch!

First, I understand that those engineers in education need to "Publish or Perish."

What has been frustrating for me is the current editors in the Leadership and Management Journal have continually refused to review the third part of my trilogy. The first two papers are published:

Part I: Elephant in the Living Room[1]

 Part II: May the Force Be With You: Anatomy of Project Failures[2]

What remains to be published in this trilogy:

·         Part III: Managing Projects Successfully in a World of Uncertainty

I was told by LME editors "We do not publish those types of papers any longer."

So, while I empathize with our colleagues in education, to reject practical engineer's experiences within our journals deprives emerging engineers of the value of real-world engineering within projects, programs, and life with the offices of those engineers.

Cheers,

William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., Engineering Management; CMQ/OE; Fellow, ASCE

I have relied on papers published in the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering for many years.  While most papers focus on subject matter and details that are not of interest to my practice, some are very practical and useful.  Most useful have been papers on dam breach geometry, bank full and downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels, ice influence on channel geometry, channel migration, and on pier, abutment, and plunge pool scour.  Most recently, inspired by discontent with ambiguous uncertainty associated with application of available bedload transport equations, I have reviewed many bedload transport papers prior to development of the Regime Channel Bedload Transport Equation (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-12983), a very simple equation suitable for bedload prediction with known uncertainty.

Following up on the recent post on Practicing Professionals Publishing Papers I'm curious about the value CE practitioners gain from the ASCE Journals. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of the content that gets reported in these journals but most published articles are not relatable or relevant to someone practicing engineering. I like the articles in Civil Engineering for their relevancy and readability. I only wish there was more detail, especially around the novel and unusual aspects of the reported projects. What do others think? Is more needed/can more be done to address the needs of practicing engineers?