Measures of Dispersion and Variability: Range, QD, AD and SD
Elsevier Author Workshop – How to write a scientific paper… and get it published
1. How to Get Published
in a Research Journal
Katherine Eve
Publisher, Geochemistry & Geophysics Journals, Elsevier Limited
IDRC 2012 26th August 2012
2. Outline
• Publishing History
• Publishing Landscape and Cycle
• Publishing Cycle
• Your Expertise
• Initial Considerations
• Are you ready to publish?
• What is a strong manuscript?
• Paper types
• Choosing the right journal
3. • How to write a good manuscript
• Preparations before starting
• Constructing your article
• Language
• Submission
• The review process
• Demystifying the „black hole‟
• Types of review
• What do reviewers look for?
• Ethical issues
• What is unethical behaviour?
• Scientific misconduct
• Publishing misconduct
• Consequences
5. The Publisher’s Role Today
Registration Certification Dissemination Preservation Use
Innovation & Technology
Publishers coordinate the exchange of ideas between
authors, editors, reviewers, and the wider STM audience of
researchers, scientists, health professionals, students, and
patients.
5
6. Change in Scholarly Communication,...
From “print science” to “electronic science”
• Research output nowadays is more than text and images.
Also data sets, computer code, multimedia files etc.
7. ...Dramatic Growth in Output...
25000
~3% per annum
“This is truly the decade of the journal
and one should seek to limit their
20000
number rather than to increase
Active, Peer-Reviewed Journals
them, since there can be too many
periodicals.”
15000 Neues medicinisches Wochenblatt fur
Aerzte (1789)
10000
5000
0
<1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s >2000
Decade
• Extent of output means readers need assistance with analysing and
interpreting research
8. ...and increasing importance of data...
Publishing Research Consortium, 2010
Researchers, N = 3824
Important,
but hard to access
9. ...means changes in the way we publish
• Content: Need to enhance the online article so that it allows researchers
to optimally communicate scientific research in all its (digital) breadth
• Context: Need to connect the online article to trustworthy scientific
resources to present valuable additional information
• Presentation: Need to optimise browsing and reading experience
pres.
content context
• Introducing Elsevier‟s Article of the Future
10. The Article of the Future?
Feedback
“New presentation format
and extra features make it
faster / easier to obtain
understanding”
“Article outline in the left
pane helps to easily navigate
within an article”
“Additional content/features
in the right pane help when
reading the article”
(Survey with 600+
participants)
Left pane:
efficient Center pane: Full-text
navigation Right pane: collects domain-
view, designed for optimal
& browsing specific tools and content.
online reading experience
Shown here: Fossil Taxa from
PaleoDB
11. Interactive Maps
e.g. GoogleMaps
How does it work?
1. Authors store geospatial data
as a .KML file (using regular
GIS tools)
2. Authors upload .KML files as
supplementary material
through EES (may also be at
revision stage)
3. Elsevier turns this into an
Interactive Map and includes
this in the online article
4. Readers can explore map
from the article, or download
KML file
12. Data-Linking Applications
e.g. PANGAEA
How does it work?
1. Authors (or data managers for
large projects) deposit data at
PANGAEA and provide
publication info
2. Online article reader sees an
interactive application that
visualizes data on the map
3. Application contains link to full
data record at PANGAEA
14. • 2,000 publishers
• 20,000 journals
• 3M articles submitted from 5.5 M researchers
• 1.5M articles published
• 30M readers
• 2 billion digital article downloads
• 30M article citations
Source: Knowledge Networks and Nations:
Royal Society 2011
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/In
fluencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-
nations.pdf
15. The Journal Publishing Cycle
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
15
16. Submission and Assessment
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
16
18. Editing, Preparation and Production
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
18
19. Editing, Preparation and Production
Copy editing, Logo, paginatio
Author Submits Manuscript Author Proofing, n, branding
Manuscript Accepted Preparation for publishing
2. Accepted
4. Published
1. Preprint Author 3. Document Journal Article
Manuscript
Electronic Warehouse
Published as Published as
Print Copy HTML or PDF
• Publishers can create an Electronic Warehouse and other electronic
production tools to speed up production times
• These tools require heavy investments, but they can process hundreds
of thousands of articles and maintain digitized backfiles
19
20. Publication and Dissemination
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
20
21. From Print to Electronic
Traditional Print
Journals
Electronic Journal
Platforms improve online
dissemination and
access, for example
21
22. Universal Access
Open Access Journals Open Access Articles
Author pays Option to pay for OA at point of
acceptance
Open Archives
Delayed access to recent archives
after embargo of 6-48 months
Retained Author Rights Supporting and Facilitating
Permitted posting of preprint and accepted Posting in Repositories
author manuscript (AAM) for personal use, Example: Elsevier deposits NIH
institutional use, and permitted scholarly funded research in PMC on author
posting behalf
23. Global Reach –
Information Philanthropy
Free or very low cost access
to 1000s of peer-reviewed journals
from current day back to 1995
to public institutions in over 100 developing countries 23
24. Archiving and Promoting Article Use
• Organise editorial boards Solicit and
• Launch new specialist
manage
journals
submissions
Archive and Manage peer
promote use review
Publish and Edit and
disseminate prepare
Production
24
25. 3rd Party Archiving
In addition to traditional print archives, publishers
are partnering to create multiple distributed
electronic archives with 3rd parties for posterity
Elsevier has partnered with the …and is developing similar
National Library of the arrangements with other
Netherlands… organizations
1st official archive
2nd official archive 2-year Pilot Study
25
26. Promoting Use by New Audiences
• Abstract & Index Databases
• Workflow & Research Tools
• Scientific Search Engines
• Patient Use (Patient Research)
• Point of Care Decision Making
26
30. Are you ready to publish?
You should consider publishing if you have information
that advances understanding in a specific research field
This could be in the form of:
• Presenting new, original results or methods
• Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results
• Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field
If you are ready to publish, a strong
manuscript is what is needed next
31. What is a strong manuscript?
• Has a clear, useful, and exciting message
• Presented and constructed in a logical manner
• Reviewers and editors can grasp the significance
easily
Editors and reviewers are all busy people –
make things easy to save their time
32. Paper types
1. Conference papers
2. Full articles / Original articles
3. Letters / Rapid Communications/ Short
communications
4. Review papers / perspectives
33. 1. Conference Papers
• Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress
research findings
• Typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 references
• Typically edited by conference/session
organiser(s)
• Good way to start a scientific research career
34. 2. Full articles
• Standard for disseminating completed research
findings
• Typically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 references
• Good way to build a scientific research career
35. 3. Letters
• Quick and early communications of
significant, original advances
• Much shorter than full articles
• Usually follow up with a full length paper later
36. 4. Review papers/perspectives
• Critical synthesis of a specific research topic
• Typically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 references
• Typically solicited by journal editors
• Good way to consolidate a scientific research
career
38. Which paper type?
Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full
article? Would a short communication/letter be
better?
Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for
advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can
see things more clearly than you.
39. Choosing the right journal
• Discuss with your co-author, supervisor and
collaborators.
• Look at your references to narrow down your choices.
• Review recent publications in each candidate journal.
Find out the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.
• Find out journal specifics:
Is the journal peer-reviewed?
Who is this journal‟s audience?
What is the average time to print?
What is the journal‟s Impact Factor?
• Decide on one journal. DO NOT submit to multiple journals
• Consider journals‟ Guides/Instructions for Authors
41. Preparations before you start
– Read the Guide for Authors
• You can find the Guide for Authors on the journal homepage on
Elsevier.com
• Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript, even in the first
draft (text layout, nomenclature, figures & tables, references etc.). In
the end it will save you time, and also the editor‟s.
• Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time on poorly prepared
manuscripts.
42. Constructing your article
- General structure of a research article
Make them easy for
• Title The progression andthe thematic
indexing of searching!
• Abstract scope of a paper:
(informative, attractive,
• Keywords effective)
general specific general
• Main text (IMRAD) Journal space is not
– Introduction However, we often write in the
unlimited.
– Methods following order: as
Make your article
– Results – Figuresconcise as possible.
and tables
– And
– Discussions– Methods, Results and
Discussion
• Conclusions – Conclusions and Introduction
• Acknowledgements
– Abstract and title
• References
• Supplementary Data
43. - Title
• Attract the reader‟s attention
• Be specific
• Keep it informative and concise
• Avoid jargon and abbreviations
44. - Title – some examples
Original Title Revised Remarks
Preliminary Effect of Zn on Long title distracts readers.
observations on the anticorrosion of zinc Remove all redundancies such as
effect of Zn element plating layer “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc.
on anticorrosion of
zinc plating layer
Action of antibiotics Inhibition of growth Titles should be specific.
on bacteria of mycobacterium Think to yourself: “How will I search for this
tuberculosis by piece of information?” when you design the
streptomycin title.
45. - Abstract
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether
or not your work is further considered...
– Brief - one paragraph
We tackle the general linear instantaneous model (possibly
underdetermined and noisy) where we model the source prior with a
Student t distribution. The conjugate-exponential characterisation of the t
– Advertisement of your article (freely What has
distribution as an infinite mixture of scaled Gaussians enables us to do
efficient inference. We study two well-known inference methods, Gibbs
available through A&I)
sampler and variational Bayes for Bayesian source separation. We derive
been done
both techniques as local message passing algorithms to highlight their
– Easy to understand (without reading the whole
algorithmic similarities and to contrast their different convergence
characteristics and computational requirements.
Our simulation results suggest that typical posterior distributions in source
article)
separation have multiple local maxima. Therefore we propose a hybrid
What are the
approach where we explore the state space with a Gibbs sampler and
– Must be accurate and specific! main findings
then switch to a deterministic algorithm. This approach seems to be able
to combine the speed of the variational approach with the robustness of
the Gibbs sampler.
46. - Keywords
Used by indexing and abstracting services
• Labels/tags
• Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA)
• Check the „Guide for Authors‟
Article Title Keywords
“Silo music and silo quake: granular Silo music, Silo quake, stick-slip
flow-induced vibration” flow, resonance, creep, granular
discharge
“An experimental study on evacuated Solar collector; Supercritical CO2;
tube solar collector using supercritical Solar energy; Solar thermal
CO2” utilization
47. The same things?
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Main text (IMRAD)
– Introduction
– Methods
– Results
– And
– Discussions
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgement
• References
• Supporting Materials
50. - Results – what have you found?
• Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story.
• Include:
– Main findings
– Unexpected findings
– Results of the statistical analysis
51. - Results – graphs, figures and tables
• Captions and legends must be detailed enough
to make figures and tables self-explanatory
• No duplication of results described in text or
other illustrations
• Use colour ONLY when necessary e.g. if
different line styles can clarify the
meaning, use this instead of colour. Figure
should be visible and distinguishable when
printed out in black & white.
• Do NOT ‘selectively adjust’ any image to
enhance visualization of results.
53. Not the same things
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords – Introduction (background, literature survey)
• – Methods
Main text (IMRAD)
– Introduction (definition/notation, theory/hypothesis, specifi
– Methods cation, experimental set up, proofs)
– Results – Results (your proof, Algorithms, data)
– And
– And
– Discussions
– Discussions
• Conclusion
(evaluation, comparisons, further
• Acknowledgement
work, related work)
• References
• Supporting Materials
56. - Acknowledgements
Ensures those who helped in the research are
recognised
Include individuals who have assisted with your study, including:
• Advisors
• Financial supporters
• Proofreaders
• Typists
• Suppliers who may have given materials
57. Language
- Why is language important?
Save your editor and reviewers the
trouble of guessing what you mean
Complaint from an editor:
“[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend time
trying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, I
really want to send a message that they can't submit garbage to us
and expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are more
than 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I don't waste my
time carefully reading the rest.”
58. - Do publishers correct language?
• No. It is the author‟s responsibility to make sure his
paper is in its best possible form when submitted for
publication
• However:
– Publishers often provide resources for authors who are
less familiar with the conventions of international journals.
Please check your publishers‟ author website for more
information.
– Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to
peer review.
– Visit http://webshop.elsevier.com for translation and
language editing services.
59. Submission
- Final checks
• Revise before submission
• Vet the manuscript as thoroughly as possible
before submission
• Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your
manuscript
60. - Covering letter
Your chance to speak to the editor directly from all
Final approval
authors
• Submitted along with your manuscript
• Mention what would make your manuscript
special to the journal
Explanation of importance
• Note special requirements of research
(reviewers, conflicts
of interest)
Suggested reviewers
63. Demystifying the ‘black hole’
Author Editor Reviewer
START
Basic requirements met?
Submit a [Yes]
paper
Assign
reviewers Review and give
[No] recommendation
Collect reviewers’
recommendations
[Reject] Make a
REJECT
decision
Revise the [Revision required]
paper
[Accept]
Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.ACCEPT
63
http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf
64. Desk Rejection
(rejection without external review)
The Editor-in-chief evaluates all submissions, and determines whether they go into the
review process or are rejected by the editor
Some journal specific policy e.g. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta “Rule of Two”
Criteria
– Out of scope
– Too preliminary
– Lack of Novelty
– Inadequate English language
– Prior publication of (part of) the data
– Ethical issues e.g. submitted elsewhere
– And more...
65. Review Process
Regular articles are initially reviewed by at least two reviewers
A third reviewer may be used in case of disagreements between reviewers
When invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the manuscript
The editor generally requests that the article be reviewed within reasonable
time (varies per field), limited extensions sometimes acceptable
If a report has not been received in good time, the Editorial office contacts
the reviewer
Articles are generally revised until the reviewers agree on either acceptance
or rejection, or until the editor decides that the reviewer comments have been
addressed satisfactorily
The reviewers‟ reports help the Editors to reach a decision
The reviewer recommends…the editor decides
66. Review Policy
Reviewers do not communicate directly As author
with authors As editor
As reviewer
All manuscripts and supplementary material must be As reader
treated confidentially by editors and reviewers
The aim is to have a “first decision” to the authors as
fast as possible after submission of the manuscript
Meeting these schedule objectives requires a
significant effort on the part of the Editorial staff,
As a researcher,
Editor and Reviewers
you wear many hats!
If reviewers treat authors as they themselves
would like to be treated as authors, then
these objectives can be met
67. What is the reviewer looking for?
Yes No
Is the article within the scope of the journal?
Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist
journal?
Can the article be condensed?
• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables Text
Is the language acceptable?
Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further
clarification?
• If so, where? ________________
On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding
• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz
• Experimental design
• Evaluation of data
• Discussion of results
• Clarity of presentation
The article should be
Accepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensation
Reconsidered after major revision Rejected
Confidential comments to the editor: [free text]
68. What is the reviewer looking for?
Yes No
Is the article within the scope of the journal?
Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist
journal?
Can the article be condensed? “ Novelty”
• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables Text
Is the language acceptable?
Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further
clarification?
• If so, where? ________________
On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding
• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz
• Experimental design “ Technical” Quality
• Evaluation of data
• Discussion of results
• Clarity of presentation
The article should be
Accepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensation
Reconsidered after major revision Rejected
Confidential comments to the editor: [free text]
69. Decision possibilities
• Accept without change (very rare!)
• Minor revision (means you will have to change a few
things)
• Moderate revision (means you will have to rewrite a few
things, possibly sections, figures, provide more data, etc)
• Major revision (means you will have to address some
fundamental shortcomings – possibly doing additional
research and certainly rewriting big sections)
• Rejection (means the manuscript is not deemed suitable
for publication in that journal)
70. Revision:
a great opportunity
• Value the opportunity to discuss your work directly with other
scientists in your community to improve your manuscript
• Prepare a detailed letter of response
– Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer
– State specifically the changes (if any) you have made to the
manuscript (identify the page and line number)
– Provide a scientific response to any comment you accept
– Offer a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to any point on
which you think the reviewer is wrong
• Write in a such way that your responses can be forwarded by
the editor to the reviewer
71. Rejection:
not the end of the world
•You are not alone – everyone has papers rejected
so do not take it personally
•Try to understand why the paper was rejected
•You have received the editors and reviewers‟ time – benefit from
the advice and pointers they have given you
•Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate to
submit the paper elsewhere. If so:
begin as if you are going to write a new article
read the Guide for Authors of the new journal
address previous reviewer comments
72. Types of review
SUBMIT TO A JOURNAL REVIEW ON A JOURNAL
Less likely More likely Less likely More likely
Single Blind
Double Blind
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer known to author only)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer name next to article)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer report posted but NO name)
Open Peer Review
(Reviewer‟s name and report posted)
Post-publication assessment
(Peer reviewed before publication)
Post-publication assessment
(No peer review before publication)
74. What is unethical behaviour?
Unethical behaviour can earn rejection and even a ban from
publishing in some journals. Unethical behaviour includes:
• Scientific misconduct
• Falsification/fabrication of results
• Publishing misconduct
– Plagiarism
– Different forms / severities
– The paper must be original to the authors
– Duplicate/multiple submission
– Redundant publication
– Failure to acknowledge prior research and researchers
– Inappropriate identification of all co-authors
– Conflict of interest
76. - Fabrication and falsification
• Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording
or reporting them
• Falsification is manipulating research
materials, equipment, processes, or changing/omitting
data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record
77. Publishing misconduct
- Plagiarism
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those obtained through
confidential review of others’ research proposals and
manuscripts”
Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999
“Presenting the data or interpretations of others without
crediting them, and thereby gaining for yourself the
rewards earned by others, is theft, and it eliminates the
motivation of working scientists to generate new data
and interpretations”
Bruce Railsback, Professor, Department of Geology, University of Georgia
77
78. - Multiple/Duplicate submission
• Two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same
hypotheses, data, discussion points, or conclusions
• An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a
previously published paper. Published studies do not need to be
repeated unless further confirmation is required.
• Nuances:
– Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of
conferences does not preclude subsequent submission for
publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of
submission.
– Re-publication of a paper in another language is
acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of
its original source at the time of submission.
79. - Authorship
General principles for who is listed first
• First Author
Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis and the
proper presentation and interpretation of the results
Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal
• Corresponding author
Makes intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contributes to
data interpretation
Reviews each paper draft
Must be able to present the results, defend the implications and discuss
study limitations
Avoid
• Ghost Authorship
– leaving out authors who should be included
• Gift Authorship
– including authors who did not contribute significantly
80. - Conflicts of interest
• Conflicts of interest can take many forms:
– Direct financial
e.g. employment, stock ownership, grants, patents
– Indirect financial
e.g. onoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony
– Career & intellectual
e.g. promotion, direct rival
– Institutional
– Personal belief
• The proper way to handle potential conflicts of interest is through transparency and
disclosure
• At the journal level, this means disclosure of the potential conflict in your cover letter to
the journal editor
81. Consequences
The article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be removed from ScienceDirect.
Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of retraction…
81
83. Elsevier Listens…
Every journal, platform and product at Elsevier is co-developed with ongoing community input.
In 2011 we surveyed or consulted with thousands of individuals:
Purchaser/Customer Innovation Explorers:
Service Satisfaction Researchers
& Librarians
Product Feedback Librarian
Surveys Advisory Board
… so please give your feedback on this session!
Editor's Notes
First I would like to thank Marc Stahl for arranging the room and working behind the scenes to make you all aware of this workshop.A bit of background about me: Katie EvePublisher of Geochemistry & Geophysics journals, including International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, new journal affiliated with Global Risk Forum, organising society of IDRC conference.Have worked at Elsevier just over 2 years, previously worked at Taylor & Francis on Chemistry journals.Before that I did my Masters in Biochemistry so I have experience in the Physical and Life Sciences.The aim of today is to give you some breif background on scholarly publishing, the publishing cycle and what publisher do.I will then go onto talk about the process of publishing your research in academic journals: from deciding whether you are ready to publish, to choosing a journal for submission, to structuring your paper, to considering ethics.
Including data sets, models, algorithms and programs which are critical to fully understand research, but often difficult to obtain and access.
Publishers are rethinking article presentation. For instance, Elsevier have developed the Article of the Future, an ongoing project to optimise online scientific communication and article presentation. The most striking change is to the presentation, moving to a 3 pane view across all journals with HTML: The left pane is for browsing & navigation, allowing the reader to quickly find the relevant sections in the article. Also images are available here, since we’ve learned that for many researchers these are a key decision-making factor to determine if an article is of interest or not. The middle pane is geared for an optimal “full-text article” reading experience. We’ve tried to incorporate typographical lessons from the PDF such as column width and heading size for an optimal reading experience. The right pane collects additional content and tools that are available for the article. This includes author information, a reference list, and an image browser – but also new types of content and context which are domain specific.
One example of a domain specific enhancement is InteractiveGoogle Maps. Researchers in Earth Science often have a collection of research data that is organized geospatially, with data points connected to coordinates on Earth. Authors using GIS systems can export data as KML files, and if this is submitted as a supplementary file, Elsevier is able to turn the data into an interactive map which appears within the online article as an embedded application beneath the abstract. Readers can explore the map in the article or download the KML file. We are currently offering this to over 80 journals from earth sciences, to geography, to archaeology and even to health/medical sciences e.g. for pandemic mapping.
We also mentioned the increasing importance of data, and Elsevier has developed several solutions to linking with data repositories. A neat example is the PANGAEA linking application that is shown here The application queries the PANGAEA database for data records in their system that are associated with the article that is being displayed on ScienceDirect. If there are relevant data records which have been deposited at PANGAEA by the author, they will be shown on an interactive map simultaneously fed to the article page from another information resource on the internet. The reader can access a description of the data record by clicking on the points of the map, but also follow a link to PANGAEA to get to the actual data.
These numbers show the landscape including all publishers and are intended to give you a broad overview of the sheer scale of publishing. Just to pick out 2 facts, relevant to this workshop particularly:1. With approx 50% rejected (only 1 in 2 of submitted articles are eventually published) there is a high risk of your paper being rejected2. With 1.5 mill articles published p.a. you have to do a LOT to get your article noticed once it has been published
So from looking at the broad publishing landscape and process, I want to bring this discussion back to all of you sitting here
This is a tool called SciVal Spotlight which allows one to pinpoint the strengths by subject of a particular country or institution.Each circle represents a competency (or strength).Size of circle is related to the amount of content.Location shows the subject area and how interdisciplinary the research is.
So now getting into the main part of the presentation. Just before we get started on this, to give me an idea of what stage you are all at, and to check you are still awake, can I have a show of hands:How many of you have already had a paper published?How many of you are in the process of preparing a paper?...
I’d like to start with the initial considerations that need to be made even before beginning to write your manuscript...First of all, you need to ask yourself the question: Are you really ready to publish? You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a specific research field.This could take the form of:1. Presenting new, original results or methods2. Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results3. Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or fieldIf the answer to this question is yes, a strong manuscript is what is needed next.
Your manuscript has a lot of hurdles to cross before it will be accepted; as we saw, only 1 in 2 are accepted for publication. Hence a strong manuscript is VERY important.A poorly prepared manuscript will frustrate editors and reviewers and is more likely to fall at the first hurdle as it can diminish good research.So, what is a strong manuscript?The scientific message must be clear, useful, and excitingThe author’s messages must be presented and constructed in a logical manner. The reader should arrive at the same conclusions as the author. The format chosen should best showcase your material.Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to easily grasp the scientific significance of the research.
A critical part of putting your manuscript together is deciding on the paper type to best suit your research. There are 4 main paper types, and each suit different purposes:Conference papersFull ArticlesLettersReviewsAnd I’ll briefly summarise each of these in the coming slides.Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress research findingsFairly short, typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 referencesTypically edited by conference/session organiser(s)Good way to start a scientific research career
Standard for disseminating completed research findingsTypically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 referencesGood way to build a scientific research career
Quick and early communications of significant, original advancesMuch shorter than full articlesUsually follow up with a full length paper later
Critical synthesis of a specific research topicTypically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 referencesTypically solicited by journal editorsGood way to consolidate a scientific research career
One thing to be aware of is the citation profile of each paper type:Reviews typically receive more citations than the other paper types, but take longer to reach their peak of citationsNotes are typically cited immediately, but have a short citation lifetimeArticles are somewhere inbetween
How to decide which:Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
So, you’ve decided that you are ready to publish, and the form your paper will take, the next step is to consider which journal to submit to.It goes without saying that, if you have co-authors and collaborators, this is a decision you should discuss and take together.References are always a good starting point and can give a pool of candidate journals.Looking at recent publications in each journal will show you the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, and so on.One tip I would give is to never submit work to a journal that you do not read yourself. If you do, the chances are your work will be rejected because you will not have the necessary ‘feel’ about what is appropriate. You won’t have the necessary sense of the ‘culture’ of the journal and editors.You then need to think about journal specifics: some examples are given on the slide, but in addition consider:Is this a prestigious and reputable journal? Are the editors well-respected in the field? Is there international coverage and distribution of this journal?Finally,ONLY SUBMIT TO ONE JOURNAL. Simultaneous submission to more than one journal is considered unethical. Most journals have conditions that require that manuscripts submitted to them have not been simultaneously submitted elsewhere.
Once you have selected a journal, you are then ready to begin thinking about getting down to writing your manuscript.
Your ultimate resource for this is the journal “Guide for Authors”. This contains specific details for the preparation of your manuscript; closely reading and taking note of the specifics is critical to getting your paper into the right form for submission. A guide for authors will contain details for the following:Types of papersEditorial team and contact infoGraphic considerationsLanguage acceptedPaper lengthDetails on keywords, color illustrations, proofs, offprints, etc.And many more specifics. Of course, some of these elements are also important to know at the point of deciding which journal to submit to.Apply these to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc ). Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts so if the paper fails to meet the journal specifications, at best it will be sent straight back for correction, and at worst it will be rejected outright. It’s therefore much better to invest the time upfront and make a good impression.
Title – what is your paper aboutThere are certain characteristics of strong titles:Attract the reader’s attentionBe specific and directly reflect the content of your manuscriptKeep it informative but conciseAvoid technical jargon and abbreviations; use formal languageA good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the content of a paper.Also advisable to discuss the title with your co-author.
Actual examples of titles that have been revised. Blue titles are the original. Green titles are the revised. Remarks and comments are on the right.Effective titlesIdentify the main issue of the paperBegin with the subject of the paperAre accurate, unambiguous, specific, and completeAre as short as possibleCatchyDo not contain rarely-used abbreviations
Abstract – concisely explains what you did and the key findingsThe abstract should just be one paragraph and should summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions.The abstract acts as an advertisement for you article since it is freely viewable via search and indexing services [PubMed, Medline, Embase, SciVerse Scopus, ....]. You want to make it as catchy and impactful as possible.An abstract written clearly will strongly encourage the reader to read the rest of your paper. Noone wants to read something if it’s going to be difficult of laborious to do so. Think of the abstract as the blurb for a novel.An example of an abstract is given here and is shown with the two distinct sections that are most important. The two “whats” are essential. Make it interesting, and easy to understand without reading the whole article (avoid using jargon and uncommon abbreviations if possible)Many authors write the abstract last so that it accurately reflects the finalcontent of the paper.
Illustrations, including figures and tables, are an important part of any results section and are the most efficient way to present the results. Your data are the “driving force of the paper”. Therefore, your illustrations are critical!Illustrations should be used for ESSENTIAL data only. The legend of a figure should be brief. And it should contain sufficient explanatory details to make the figure understood easily without referring to the text. Graphs are often used for comparison of experimental results againsteachother, with those of previous works, or with calculated/theoretical values. Graphs should be uncrowded; 3 or 4 data sets per figure; well-selected scales; appropriate axis label size; symbols clear to see and data sets easy to discriminate. B. Generally, tables give the actual experimental results. Be succinct and make them as easy to read as possible.C. Each photograph must have a scale marker on one corner and the resolution should be clear. Use color ONLYwhen necessary. If different line styles can clarify the meaning, never use colors or other thrilling effects.
Scientific language is a necessary and important consideration since it is one of the easiest ways for an editor or reviewer to not grasp the message of your work. The findings reported in a paper may be cutting edge, but poor language quality –including errors in grammar, spelling or language usage– could delay publication or could lead to outright rejection of the paper, preventing the research from getting the recognition it deserves.
Do Publishers Help Correct Language? Yes and noThere is often confusion on whose responsibility it is to ensure that the proper language it used in a scientific paper. It is the author’s responsibility, and in their own best interest, to make sure his/her paper is in its best possible form when submitted for publication - that includes the quality of the written English. However:- Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals . Please check your publishers’ author website for more information. - Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review.
Around 20% of all submissions are rejected without review on grounds of scope, quality or technical issues.
I often get asked the question: how long does the review process take. Unfortunately there is no easy answer as the review process can vary depending on the journal and field. According to a recent report put out by the Publishers Research Consortium, editors reported average submission-to-acceptance times of 130 days (18 weeks), split roughly equally between the initial peer review stage to first decision, and subsequent review stages. Nearly three quarters (72%) reported times of 6 months or below. Time were shortest in medical journals and nursing journals, and longest in humanities and social sciences journals.
This is an example of a reviewer checklist covering a number of elements such as:ScopeBroadness/specificityLengthLanguageWriting and presentation styleClarityNoveltySignificance/importanceEthicsLogic i.e. Do all “methods” have a “results”? Have all “results” been described in the “Methods”? Are all “conclusions” based on “results”?
Essentially novelty and technical quality. So really, just the same as the editor.
Acceptance with no changes – very rare2 extremes of revision:Minor revisionBasically, the manuscript is worth publishingBUT some elements in the manuscript need workNote, “Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision! Don’t be complacent!Major revisionThe manuscript may finally be published in the journalFundamental shortcomings must be addressed before acceptanceUsually involves (significant) textual modifications and/or additional experiments Rejection - the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication
I have yet to meet anyone how whose manuscript had never been rejected, including Nobel prize winners, editors. The important thing is to learn and benefit from the experience.