The Fearless Speaker delivers a powerful and proven roadmap for mastering public speaking and transforming fear into focused intentional presence. Drawing on decades of executive leadership, coaching, and academic experience, she guides readers step by step from fear and self-doubt to clarity, confidence, and command. Mackenzie-Ruppel is a professor in the School of Business at Molloy University.

The post TAA Member Maureen Mackenzie-Ruppel Authors New Book appeared first on Abstract.

How Trump’s Admissions-Data Push Burdened Colleges (September 30, 2026)

Higher Ed’s AI Integration Overhyped, New Data Shows (September 30, 2026)

Dartmouth Provost’s ‘AI Dependency’ Sparks Backlash (September 29, 2026)

Trump Administration Formally Rescinds Biden Title IX Rule (September 29, 2026)

The post Industry News Round-Up Week of 9/28/26 appeared first on Abstract.

We want to showcase speakers who can help the authoring community by sharing successful writing tips and strategies to inspire other textbook and/or academic authors at any stage of their career. This is an excellent opportunity to provide a hands-on learning experience as well as network with colleagues and peers through 30- or 60-minute presentations, panel discussions, discussion circles or group mentoring.

We want sessions that take full advantage of being together. Think: Interactive Workshops, Live Q&As and Collaborative Problem Solving on topics such as:

• Artificial intelligence
• Business of authoring
• Collaborating with a coauthor (at the beginning or binging them on)
• Time and Productivity
• Contract Negotiation ……and many others!

Click Here to learn more about submitting a proposal! You will need to create a Cvent account or log in to an existing Cvent account to submit a proposal.

The post Last Chance to Submit a Proposal for TAA’s 2027 Textbook & Academic Authoring Conference! appeared first on Abstract.

“Will a publisher steal my book idea?”
“Will a peer reviewer steal my ideas (data, theory, conclusions, etc.)?

In my Publishing Consulting practice over the last ten years, I get some of the same questions asked over and over again. Common ones are, “Do you know a journal that is interested in my paper on XYZ?” “Do I need an agent to get published?” Or, “Are people still reading books?

I’d gladly address these, but this blog post installment is about the two questions at the top. “Will someone steal my work?” is the easiest way to boil them both down.

I have been in scholarly publishing since 1987 (Yikes!). I oversaw the publishing of more than 20,000 journal articles and 500 textbooks and monographs. Additionally, I’ve been consulting with authors, publishers, and associations over the last ten years.

In my experience both concerns (a publisher stealing your book idea or a peer reviewer stealing your ideas) are extremely remote verging on zero. And they can be made to be infinitesimally small with only a little bit of work. As an author looking to convey your work and thoughts to the marketplace of ideas, there are much bigger worries, such as having your material accepted (rather than theft by others).

Disclaimer: Could this happen? Of course. Has it happened to people in the past? Of course. Is it common practice among reputable book publishers and peer reviewed
journals and their reviewers? In my 39 years of experience, I do not have one direct instance where I spoke with somebody that this happened to. Let's look at each
situation separately.

A Publisher Stealing a Book Idea

It is very unlikely that a reputable publisher would steal your book idea. Established publishers acquire, evaluate, and reject far more proposals than they could ever publish, and their business depends on professional credibility and long-term relationships with authors. But let’s understand what “idea theft” means in publishing.

Copyright law protects your original expression of an idea; not the idea by itself. That includes the actual words you write, your manuscript’s structure, and presentation. Copyright does not protect a concept, theme, or genre. For example, you cannot own the idea of “a textbook in public health addressing underserved populations.” Other academics can independently create books on this topic.

A publisher usually has no practical reason to take an author’s idea and create a competing book. Doing so would require time, staff, and risk. If the proposal is strong enough to publish, it is usually simpler to make an offer to the author who developed it.

Protect yourself sensibly

• Put your work in writing and retain dated drafts, research files, emails, and submission records.
• Submit only to legitimate publishers and agents. Research the company before sending a manuscript: look for a real staff, credible authors, transparent
contracts, distribution information, and a publishing track record.

Do not let fear of idea theft stop you from submitting. Your greatest risk is usually not
that a legitimate publisher will steal your concept; it is that your proposal may be
rejected, ignored, or need stronger positioning.

Peer Reviewers Stealing Your Ideas

In a reputable academic journal, theft of an author’s ideas by a peer reviewer is uncommon and is a serious breach of publication ethics.

A submitted manuscript is treated as confidential communication. Major editorial-ethics guidance states that reviewers must keep the manuscript and its contents confidential, must not publicly discuss it, and must not use or appropriate the authors’ ideas before publication.

A responsible reviewer should: Review the work only for the purpose of evaluating it for the journal; Keep the manuscript, data, methods, etc. confidential; Avoid sharing the manuscript with colleagues, students, or AI tools; Delete/destroy all copies and destroy printed copies after completing the review.

What you can do

You cannot eliminate all risk, but you can protect yourself:

• Keep dated drafts, raw data, laboratory records, research notes, etc.
• Submit to established journals with transparent editorial policies and recognized ethical standards.
• Use a preprint server when appropriate for your field. A public preprint establishes a visible, dated record of your work (although it may affect eligibility at some journals, so check the journal’s policy first).
• In your cover letter, discreetly flag direct competitors or people with relevant conflicts, if the submission system allows author-suggested exclusions.
• Preserve all editorial correspondence and decision letters.

Similarity alone is not proof of theft. Researchers can independently pursue the same question, use similar methods, or reach related conclusions.

If a reviewer appears to have used distinctive unpublished material from your manuscript, document the timeline and evidence. Contact the editor-in-chief or the
publisher’s research-integrity office, not the reviewer directly. Explain the concern factually, identify the specific overlaps, and provide dated supporting materials. Organizations such as COPE provide ethical guidance for handling peer-review issues, including confidentiality and misuse of information obtained during review.

Peer review requires trust, but it is not blind trust. Submit to credible journals, maintain clear records, and understand the journal’s ethics policy. In most cases, the greater challenge is not reviewer theft. It is navigating a fair, rigorous review process and revising your work effectively.

Hit the submit button with a bit more confidence.

(I welcome all feedback and experiences. If you feel otherwise OR if you have firsthand experience, drop a comment in the notes below. Secondhand accounts are just that.)

John Bond is a publishing consultant at Riverwinds Consulting. He is the host of the YouTube channel “Publishing Defined.” His first novel has just been released, To the End of Reckoning, a speculative thriller. Check it out or contact him at jbond@riverwindsconsulting.com.

The post Will a Publisher or Reviewer Steal my Ideas? appeared first on Abstract.

TAA updated its guidance on September 25. Learn what you need to do for undisputed and disputed claims, next steps for all claimants, special guidance for authors who want to negotiate their publishers’ percentage allocation, and when to expect payments.

We’ve also added two new pieces of guidance for authors developing arguments supporting their percentage allocations, including

• Which edition was infringed? Who was the publisher for that edition?
• The grant of rights does not mean you have no rights.

We will continue to update members as we learn new information about the next steps in the settlement process, so we encourage you to visit our Anthropic Settlement web page often.

The post Bartz v Anthropic Settlement: Updated TAA Guidance for ‘Meet & Confer’ Process appeared first on Abstract.

A big thank you to anatomy and physiology textbook author Kenneth Saladin for his donation of $15,000 in support of TAA’s efforts to guide authors through the Bartz v Anthropic settlement process.

“Thank you so much for TAA’s immeasurably helpful information on how we authors can advocate for a just apportionment of the Anthropic settlement,” he said. “I think most of us would be lost without this, particularly since counsel for the class cannot represent or advise any one of us as individuals. It’s probably more than I stand to get in settlement even for my eligible books, but fighting for principles is more important to me than fighting for money. Anthropic probably isn’t the last AI battle that authors will have to fight, but it will help lay the groundwork to perhaps make others a little easier.”

Learn how you can support TAA’s ​advocacy for ​textbook and ​academic ​authors in the Settlement​. Visit​https://www.taaonline.net/support

Visit TAA’s Anthropic Settlement page to view TAA’s guidance for educational authors whose works are included in the settlement. TAA members have access to tips for negotiating allocation percentages with their publisher.

The post TAA Member Makes Gift in Support of TAA’s Efforts to Guide Authors in the Bartz v Anthropic Settlement appeared first on Abstract.

If you would like to share your arguments as well, please contact TAA Executive Director Kim Pawlak at Kim.Pawlak@TAAonline.net.

We’ve also added two new pieces of guidance to the “considerations” page, including

• Which edition was infringed? Who was the publisher for that edition?
• The grant of rights does not mean you have no rights.

We will continue to update members as we learn new information about the next steps in the settlement process, so we encourage you to visit our Anthropic Settlement web page often.

The post Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement Next Steps: Authors Share Their Arguments appeared first on Abstract.

Plaintiffs Suing Over ED Layoffs Seek Withheld Documents (September 16, 2026)

DEI Ban Led to End of Minister Benefits and Call for Professor to Be ‘Fired or Worse’ (September 16, 2026)

Auburn Faculty Protest Board’s Curricular Overhaul (September 15, 2026)

Trump Is Betting Big on AI-Driven Research. Can Human Beings Stay in Control? (September 8, 2026)

The post Industry News Round-Up Week of 9/14/26 appeared first on Abstract.

By Kevin Patton, Frank Bell, Terry Thompson, and Peggie Williamson

A textbook revision is often described as an “update.” That word seems much too weak for what sometimes happens behind the scenes.

Elsevier released the 12th edition of Anatomy & Physiology on September 15, 2026, authored by the four of us. The new edition is 40 pages shorter than the previous one—even though we added an entirely new chapter on the human microbiome. We also reorganized the reproduction chapters using a female-first sequence, reworked difficult explanations and illustrations, strengthened our approach to terminology, and expanded our representation of human variation.

That may sound like a sudden burst of new ideas. It wasn’t.

Many of these changes had been discussed for years, sometimes decades, among scientists and A&P faculty. The pressure had been building. Our opportunity was to find responsible, workable ways to release some of that pressure.

Our mission-and-values statement, included in the Preface, gave us a clear standard for evaluating the possibilities: “Our mission is to help all students learn and apply the story of the human body.” Our values include clear and simple language, accuracy, storytelling, learning science, consistency, multisensory learning, true competency, broad instructional support, diverse representation, sensitivity to the rich variety of personal identities and experiences, and fluency in the language of science.

That statement was not Preface decoration. It became a revision tool. Would a change improve accuracy and coherence, build competency, and acknowledge the people who make up the human story? When time or space forced choices, those questions helped.

More minds—and hands

One major factor was the addition of three coauthors: Frank Bell, Terry Thompson, and Peggie Williamson. They brought fresh perspectives, complementary expertise, and more capacity within a revision schedule with firm limits.

The Patton Team of authors, editors, and designers met virtually almost every week. We researched, debated, revised, and sometimes debated again. The team approach did more than divide the workload. It expanded the work that was possible. No single author could have completed all these changes in one revision cycle.

The new Human Microbiome chapter is a good example. For decades, related coverage had been scattered among the skin, gut, respiratory tract, and elsewhere. As the science matured, that no longer seemed sufficient. The broader question for the author team was: When does a recurring thread need a home of its own—and can that home preserve freedom to navigate as needed?

Terry led the work of gathering that material, researching current thinking, and shaping a coherent draft chapter. All the author-team members and outside instructors who were already experimenting with how to effectively incorporate this topic into their own teaching provided detailed editing feedback—one concrete example of how shared authorship expanded what the team could accomplish. We retained connections throughout the book, but the chapter gives students a place to assemble the larger story. Its placement at the end lets instructors assign it wherever it fits.

Revising the story, not merely the sentences

The traditional male-first organization of reproductive-system coverage in our previous editions—and in any typical A&P textbook—had reasonable pedagogical arguments behind it, but it also reflected a deeply rooted habit. Simply reversing two chapters would have preserved the same male-versus-female framework.

Instead, we reorganized around structure first, then function. Chapter 45, Genital Systems, introduces typical female and male anatomy—in that order. Chapter 46, Reproduction, develops their physiology—likewise discussed from the female perspective first, then male.

That change opened the door to others. We redrew our traditional sketch of the ovarian cycle so egg-producing follicles no longer appear to move through the ovary as if on a conveyor belt. Detailed clitoral anatomy, already illustrated, was also clarified in the text narrative of the new edition. We added explicit coverage of perimenopause and postmenopause to better explain contemporary research and public awareness. And we revised the terms, illustrations, cross-references, questions, and online resources affected by the new organization. Change one load-bearing part of a textbook, and you quickly discover how much of the building rests on it.

Human variation belongs in the story

Variation in body structure and function is not an exception to the biological story. It is part of the story. We revised illustrations to show a fuller spectrum of human bodies, expanded discussions of individual variation, and refined language intended to be accurate and respectful of our readers’ identities and experiences.

Calling this diversity, equity, and inclusion work is fair but distracts from the educational purpose. Really, we just kept returning to questions rooted in our discipline: Is it scientifically accurate? Does it prepare future clinicians for the bodies they will encounter? Does it help all students learn without doing unnecessary harm? That framing keeps the work anchored in evidence and pedagogy, even when potential labels become political targets.

Adding while subtracting

How did we add a chapter while shortening the book by 40 pages? We tightened explanations and layouts, condensed chapter summaries, moved material that was not essential to an introductory story into ancillary resources, and moved our comprehensive glossary online. Cutting length was not housekeeping performed after the “real” revision. It was part of the intellectual work.

Frank helped us standardize pronunciations and word parts, recognized common alternative pronunciations, and continued shifting toward internationally recommended descriptive anatomical terms while retaining some familiar eponyms (terms named for people) as useful alternatives that may be encountered in clinical situations. This was fluency in the language of science made concrete.

Other changes reached across the book. For example, Peggie, a physical therapist, helped us clarify and expand our story about fascia—the body- wide web of fibers that connects our body structures. We also updated clinical and research applications, added 3D anatomy videos, created all-new Career Choices profiles, clearer visual orientation cues, and revised more questions to help readers move beyond simple recall. Not every innovation needs to announce itself with trumpets. Sometimes innovation is a hundred smaller, quieter decisions that make our instructional story more accurate, coherent, and humane.

For authors in any discipline, promising revision ideas may already be waiting in reader feedback, conversations at discipline conferences, and notes carried from one edition to the next. Perhaps there are pressures building. A fresh team, shared purpose, and room for debate can finally make them possible.

Our approach is not the only reasonable way to tell a contemporary A&P story. But it is the clearest story our team could build from the evidence, experience, and perspectives we had. And perhaps that is the larger lesson: a mature textbook can still evolve in significant ways.

More details about the changes, and the thinking behind them, are available at the Patton Anatomy & Physiology blog.

———————–

Kevin Patton, Frank Bell, Terry Thompson, and Peggie Williamson, are long- time friends and colleagues who are active in both TAA and the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society (HAPS). All four are alums and/or faculty in the Master of Science in Human Anatomy & Physiology Instruction program at Northeast College of Health Sciences. Their textbook Anatomy & Physiology is a 2016 recipient of TAA’s Texty Award.

Note to the editor: OpenAI’s ChatGPT was used as a drafting and editorial aid to help organize, condense, and refine this article. The authors supplied its subject-matter content and professional judgments, verified its accuracy, revised and approved the text, and accept full responsibility for the final version.

The post When A Revision Finally Breaks Loose appeared first on Abstract.

Q: I can’t say no to different things that keep interfering with my dissertation. Do other women doctoral candidates have this trouble?
        —Ms. Dissertationally Distracted

A: You’re right. I’ve noticed throughout my practice that women doctoral candidates especially can easily become diverted by compassion for others in trouble. Well-meaning, generous decisions and actions may result in calamitous consequences to a dissertation.

Men candidates may succumb too. If you are a man reading this, you may recognize some of these scenarios. In these six stories, you’ll see that tender-hearted consideration at the wrong times dangerously waylaid dissertation progress. Perhaps these tales will help you stick to your decisions to let no major interruptions ambush your dreamed-of doctorate.

Marcy’s House

Marcy had just reached a major milestone: approval of her dissertation proposal. While she was working on her draft, her husband found a “perfect” piece of land and wanted to start building a house together. Marcy’s next dissertation step should have been to collect her data. Instead, she collected designs and architectural plans and interviewed contractors for their house—and took a leave from her studies.

When they hired a builder, Marcy thought she could get back to her dissertation as her husband held down his office job. But she became the general contractor of the general contractor. Her days and nights were filled—supervising every square inch of the building process. I don’t know if Marcy ever reentered the university, finished her dissertation, or got her degree. Or moved into her new house.

Tina’s Clock

Tina entered a doctoral program “late,” as she called it. She and her husband wanted to start a family, and she feared her biological clock was ticking faster than the doctoral statute of limitations. Tina became pregnant and read every book she could find on “academic mommies.” With great motivation, she worked on her dissertation until the eighth month. Then she withdrew from the university for “only a year,” she promised me, “until I can get the kid into pre-pre-school.”

I received the birth announcement of a beautiful baby boy. But Tina underestimated the demands of motherhood. I didn’t hear from her for six years. When Matthew was seven, she reenrolled at the university. Her statute had run out and she was forced to start from the beginning. She spent more time and money to retake the required courses before resuming her dissertation. But . . . three years later, she insisted that Matthew call her “Doctor Mommy.”

Brenda’s Granddaughter

After years as a high school principal and close to retirement, Brenda finally took the doctoral plunge, a lifelong dream. She enthusiastically completed the coursework and did preliminary research on her dissertation topic. Then her married daughter had a baby girl who developed breathing difficulties. With the first of several operations
scheduled, the baby’s life seemed in danger.

Brenda raced out to the Midwest to comfort her daughter and care for the baby. She stayed for three years. When the child eventually regained health, Brenda returned. But her earlier degree fervor had dissipated, and instead of putting “Ph.D.” after her name, the only letters she could use were ABD (All But Dissertation).

Jenny’s Parents

Jenny lived on the West Coast and her elderly parents on the East Coast. As they became more frail, Jenny gave up a six-figure job and moved back to her family home to take care of them. She also took a clerical job, the first thing she could find. Her doctoral program was stalled, but to her credit, she continued slowly. Somehow, between her 9-to-5 job, ferrying her parents to incessant doctors’ visits, policing their medications, and keeping up the house, she fit in her doctoral work. The last I knew, Jenny was still in the early stages of her dissertation proposal and her parents were thriving. But at least she hadn’t given up.

Anne’s Romance

When Anne moved to a suburban development, one of her neighbors was a helpful and attractive man who became a friend. As he introduced her to the mysteries of crabgrass and weed killers, they became more than friends.

Anne felt elated and young. Between dinners on each other’s verandas and forays together to the home supplies store, she doggedly kept chipping away at her dissertation. Soon, Anne and her lover combined their homes and lives.

She applied for and got one extension, and then another. As the second ended, Anne started collecting her dissertation materials. Her partner, who had a master’s, became more distant. She told me in tears that he admitted feeling threatened by her imminent advanced degree. Anne was shocked but wasn’t willing to give up her goal. They broke up.

Anne was too depressed to think about school. She applied for another extension, her third. Within a month of it ending, she resumed her dissertation work but had great trouble concentrating. Anne withdrew, sold her house, and moved to another state. No partner, no degree.

Claudia’s “Husband”

Claudia experienced one of the most dramatic examples I’ve encountered of misguided compassion. A bright single woman with a brighter future, she went back to school to complete her master’s when she was 32 and came to me feeling shaky about the academic requirements. Claudia’s goal was to leave the deadening administrative job she’d held for years so she could teach in college.

With no family responsibilities and great excitement, Claudia whipped through the master’s coursework and thesis. We rejoiced on her acceptance to the doctoral program, and she was able to arrange her work schedule to take the required courses. She finished the courses quickly and began the dissertation. I helped her organize her first two chapters, and we were both elated at her committee’s positive feedback. She promised to get her draft back to me for editing in two weeks.

Two weeks came. No draft. I emailed her with a gentle reminder. No response. At three weeks, I called. On her answering machine I left a slightly less gentle reminder. I then phoned her office, got her voicemail, and left an even less gentle reminder.

In the fourth week, Claudia called. She didn’t mention her dissertation at all. Instead, she reeled out a complicated story about having to help a friend. The friend’s brother was living in their home country, a warring African nation, and his life was threatened. They needed to bring him out and couldn’t get the appropriate visa, so the only way he could enter the U.S. was by marriage. Claudia felt she “owed” it to her friend and her brother to help.

She married the brother—I know this sounds like a supermarket novel but it’s true. He came here and they worked out some way of looking like they lived together. But additional legal problems surfaced, he was in danger of being deported, and they feared for his life. Claudia too was legally vulnerable.

She told me, “I’ll be embroiled in this for a long time. I’ve got three lawyers working on it.” She took a deep breath. “My friend is devastated. I can’t desert her now.”

When I last I heard from Claudia she was plodding along in her dead-end job and probably seeing her dream career recede like low tide. Several years after beginning the program, she was still ABD and seemed to have lost heart.

Selfish?

No one can argue with the love and concern these women showed. But there’s a time and place to say yes or no. If an apparently fabulous—or dire—situation entices you, stop and think. Think about your own goals and desires and the life-altering consequences and costs to you of helping. Think about how you’ll feel quitting the dissertation—three of these women never went back.

Alternatives

If you face a situation anything like one of these I’ve described, think again. Don’t fool yourself: a harmless little pause in your doctoral program or dissertation can stretch into a permanent break.

Explore options other than your total involvement. Get help if you need to. Talk with a neutral person; a dialogue can open up possibilities and resources you may not have thought of and can suggest to the person in need. Explore other family members and agencies. Claudia, for example, might have been persuaded to help her friend’ brother without taking the radical step that bred more entangled problems than propagating octopuses.

Granted, saying “no” may be very hard. You can explain why you’re saying no (although often any explanation doesn’t convince). Sometimes saying no is the kindest thing you can do. Tina could have sought early daycare that would have probably been good for her child and her. After the crisis was over, Brenda could have helped her daughter research skilled help for the baby.

Take Yourself Seriously—with Discipline

If you really want to complete your dissertation, take it seriously, like any large, important project. You’re an athlete in training: no excessive booze, no late nights, no DIY massive projects, overgiving help, offering to host a 30-guest Thanksgiving, whirlwind romance, or impulsive marriage proposal or acceptance.

Most importantly, remember that you haven’t lost your compassion for others. You’ve diverted it and channeled it toward yourself, and you’ll come out stronger for it. For all you know, when those who don’t receive your help seek other solutions, they may come out stronger too. You’ll have opportunities to show your compassion and caring–later. And more, you will honor your desire to complete your dissertation and, finally, achieve your precious and hard-won doctorate.

Dissertation coach, nurturer, bolsterer, handholder, and editor; scholarly and mainstream writing consultant; author of writing craft, spiritual, and academic articles; and spiritual and motivational counselor, Noelle Sterne has published many pieces in print and online venues, including Author Magazine, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Children’s Book Insider, Graduate Schools Magazine, GradShare, InnerSelf, Inspire Me Today, Transformation Magazine, Unity Magazine, Women in Higher Education, Women on Writing, Writer’s Digest, and The Writer. Noelle’s ninth story for Chicken Soup for the Soul appears in June 2025 in the volume Self-Care Isn’t Selfish. With a Ph.D. from Columbia University, Noelle has for 30 years helped doctoral candidates wrestle their dissertations to completion (finally). Based on her practice, her Challenges in Writing Your Dissertation: Coping with the Emotional, Interpersonal, and Spiritual Struggles (Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2015) addresses students’ often overlooked or ignored but crucial nonacademic difficulties that can seriously prolong their agony. See the PowerPoint teaser here. In Noelle`s Trust Your Life: Forgive Yourself and Go After Your Dreams (Unity Books, 2011), she draws examples from her academic consulting and other aspects of life to help readers release regrets and reach lifelong yearnings. Following one of her own, she is currently working on her third novel. Visit Noelle at www.trustyourlifenow.com

The post Dear Dr. Noelle: Dissertation Interruptus appeared first on Abstract.