Author workshop TU Delft 20111122

Uploaded on

Elsevier Science, Christiane Barranguet; Mark van Loosdrecht editor- in- chief Water research

Elsevier Science, Christiane Barranguet; Mark van Loosdrecht editor- in- chief Water research

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Dear Colleagues.
    Since January 29, I publish a video blog with graphic tutorials to
    scientific publishing, called KEEP CALM and PUBLISH PAPERS. I hope,
    you may find this interesting when writing your thesis, paper or
    making a presentation.

    Best regards
    Pawel Jerzy Wojcik, Ph.D.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • The other key feature of Scopus is its international scope. Scopus journal coverage is global by design, and many of the journals currently being added to its indexing coverage are coming from emerging research countries such as China, Brazil, and South Korea. At the same time, Scopus comprehensively covers all of the major journals in North America and Europe, traditional journal publication leaders. This international emphasis can help overcome the longstanding bias towards English-language journals published in well-established research countries.
  • The second tool we have used for this analysis is called SciVal Spotlight. The traditional methodology uses journal classification codes to categorize any particular article; thus if a paper were published in the journal Water Treatment, it would be considered to be 100% about that field. Instead, by looking at the individual articles within the journal and doing a co-citation analysis on the references, we can see that the same paper might have 20% of its references to computer sciences and 10% to economics fields. The article can then be fractionally assigned to these disciplines, and give a far more accurate and sensitive picture of the paper and the interdisciplinary fields it contributes to. Co-citation analysis has been used for many years, having been introduced in 1973 by Henry Small. Eugene Garfield, another pioneer in bibliometrics, said in 2001 that “Co-citation analysis has had an enormous and measurable impact on the field of information science itself as well and outside the field by scholars who have used it as a tool for mapping their disciplines or specialties.” The other great benefit of the bottom-up approach is that it changes as the underlying science changes in a way that any traditional, top-down hierarchical schema cannot. An interesting thought experiment here would be to compare genetics in 1999 to genetics in 2001, with human genome being fully sequenced in late 2000, the fundamentals of genetics itself had changed, and opened up broad areas of research that weren’t possible a few years earlier. Thus this analysis, which makes interdisciplinary research and its components visible for the first time, changes as the underlying science itself changes. When all of this analysis has been completed, what we are left with is what we call the Wheel of Science. This allows us to visualize research strengths for individual institutions, or at a different level of aggregation, for individual countries. This map happens to be Georgia Tech’s map, and you can clearly see that its research strengths are concentrated in the computer sciences, math and physics, and engineering disciplines.
  • BioBased Economy, Climate, Nutrition & health, Animal welfare
  • Here is one example of how crowded some subject areas have become. In the category of “Analytical Chemistry”, 11 journals titles are unveiled here. The point is that not only do the titles sound very similar in certain respects, it is difficult to judge which journal might be better than others unless you had a deeper understanding of the journal histories, editors, prestige, and audience. Furthermore, these are just 11 of more than 60 journals in this subject area. The second point is that journals must vigorously compete with one another to attract the best authors and best editors and elevate their reputation and prestige. There are various metrics which can serve as useful tools to help in assessing the relative standing of journals.
  • Section Title Slide
  • The use of citation data and bibliometrics can be effectively used as one means for measuring the impact or influence of articles, authors, and journals. Academic institutions often use journal metrics to evaluate faculty for tenure and promotion. Some of the more commonly used journal metrics are listed here and each will be described in detail in the slides ahead: Impact Factor H-index SCImago Journal Rank Usage
  • There are too many occasions that need your to consult the Guide for Authors. We will mention them later!
  • Both apps do not sync to the desktop version of Scopus or ScienceDirect meaning alerts and settings on your desktop version will not be saved to your iPhone and you need to email yourself if you want to read an article/citation on your desktop rather than on your iPhone
  • Image and its description may not always fit the same page. Scrolling through the article back and forward can be tedious.
  • The scientific message must be clear, useful, and exciting The 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 the author’s material. Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to easily grasp the scientific significance of the research Editors, reviewers and readers all want to save time and not waste it.
  • The scientific message must be clear, useful, and exciting The 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 the author’s material. Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to easily grasp the scientific significance of the research Editors, reviewers and readers all want to save time and not waste it.
  • You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific field This could take the form of: 1. Presenting new, original results or methods 2. Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results 3. Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field You should consider NOT publishing yet if: Your report is of no scientific interest The work is out of date You would be duplicating previously published work Your conclusions are incorrect/not acceptable A STRONG manuscript is crucial in order to present your contributions to the scientific community
  • The key is to write clearly, objectively, accurately, and with brevity or concision. The most common errors are as follows and I will go into each one of these in the subsequent slides. Sentence construction Incorrect tenses Inaccurate grammar Not consistent use of English throughout the paper. Once again, language specifications can also be referenced at the Guide for Authors. Foreign language students should practice writing English at any moment they can. Maybe keep records in English during the research?
  • 1. Sentences should be constructed in short, factual bursts. Long sentences confuse readers. Short sentences look more professional. The average length of sentences in scientific writing is about 12-17 words. Only one idea should be conveyed per sentence. The example given is an extreme case of a very long run-on sentence. When read, the messages are easily lost.
  • 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.
  • The 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. 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. An example of an abstract is given here and is shown with the two distinct sections that are most important. Different journals have different requirements for the content of abstract. (Again, consult the Guide for Authors. ) But 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) Note that some journals ask for a graphical abstract. Many authors write the abstract last so that it accurately reflects the content of the paper.
  • The cover letter offers you a chance to correspond directly with the journal editor. Many editors won ’ t reject a manuscript only because the cover letter is bad. However, a good cover letter may accelerate the editorial process of your paper. It is submitted along with your manuscript. You want to mention what would make your manuscript special or worthwhile to the journal. Do not summarize your manuscript, or repeat the abstract. You should mention why your manuscript is original and what your purpose is. Your letter should also state the final approval of all co-authors as well as if your manuscript has been previously rejected. Consider mentioning other special requirements such as conflicts of interest, suggested reviewers, people who should not review.


  • 1. How to write a world class paper TU Delft, Netherlands 22 nd of November 2011 Mark van Loosdrecht, Delft University Dr. Christiane Barranguet , Journal Publisher Elsevier Jan-Albert Majoor MSc., Account Development Manager
  • 2. Outline
    • TU Delft and Elsevier
    • How to get Published
      • Before you begin
      • Select your audience
      • The review process
    • What not to do…
  • 3. Peer-Reviewed Journal Growth 1665-2001 Source: M A Mabe The number and growth of journals Serials 16(2).191-7, 2003 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) 2009 1,4 million articles in 23,000 journals by 2,000 publishers 1 100 10000 1665 1765 1865 1965 Year No of titles launched and still extant 2001
  • 4. Trends in publishing
    • Rapid conversion from “print” to “electronic”
      • 1997: print only
      • 2009: 55% e-only (many e-collections) 25% print only 20% print-plus-electronic
    • Changing role of “journals” due to e-access
    • Increased usage of articles, at lower cost per article
    • Electronic submission
      • Increased manuscript inflow
    • Experimentation with new publishing models
      • E.g. “author pays” models, “delayed open access”, etc.
  • 5. Scopus at a Glance—Comprehensive Global Coverage
    • Scopus is the largest multidisciplinary abstract and citation database with peer-reviewed research literature, quality web sources, patents and more.
    • Scopus covers over 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 global publishers.
    • Scopus coverage is global by design : Scopus content originates from outside North America representing various countries Europe, Latin America and the Asia Pacific region.
  • 6. Article-level co-citation analysis as a foundation for better analysis of interdisciplinary fields
    • SciVal Spotlight provides unique value in three areas:
      • Comprehensive, multi-disciplinary and global content, based on Scopus abstracts and citation data
      • High-quality matching of output by authors and institutions, based on Scopus author and affiliation profiles
      • Bottom-up aggregation of research activity using article-level classification, through partnership with industry thought leaders
  • 8. Delft University of Technology Article Output
    • Since 2001: total of 24,500+ publications
    • Recent years: Many publications in journals as Water Research and Water Science and Technology and Physical Review B Condensed Matter and Materials Physics
    • 25% of all TU Delft papers find a home with Elsevier
  • 9. Elsevier Journal publishing volume
    • 1,000 new editors per year
    • 20 new journals per year
    • 600,000+ article submissions per year
    • 200,000 reviewers
    • 1 million reviewer reports per year
    • 7,000 editors
    • 70,000 editorial board members
    • 6.5 million author/publisher communications /year
    • 280,000 new articles produced per year
    • 190 years of back issues scanned, processed and data-tagged
    • 11 million researchers
    • 5,000+ institutions
    • 180+ countries
    • 400 million+ downloads per year
    • 3 million print pages per year
    • 11 million articles now available
    • 40%-90% of articles rejected
    Solicit and manage submissions Manage peer review Production Publish and disseminate Edit and prepare Archive and promote
    • Organise editorial boards
    • Launch new specialist journals
  • 10. Journal Competition
      • Journals must vigorously compete with each other for the best papers and the best authors
      • The concept of journal prestige originates from this competition
    For example: In the category of “Analytical Chemistry” Analytical Chemistry Analytica Chimica Acta Analytical Biochemistry Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry Analyst Electroanalysis Analytical Sciences Journal of Analytical Chemistry Current Analytical Chemistry Reviews in Analytical Chemistry And >50 others! How can you tell which of these are high quality journals?
  • 11. What metrics are used to compare journals?
  • 12. Overview of Journal Metrics
    • Impact Factor
    • H-index
    • SCImago Journal Rank
    • Usage
      • Journal citation data and bibliometrics can be used to measure the impact or influence of articles, authors, and journals
  • 13.
    • Impact Factor
    • [the average annual number of citations per article published]
    • For example, the 2008 impact factor for a journal would be calculated as follows:
      • A = the number of times articles published in 2006 and 2007 were cited in indexed journals during 2008
      • B = the number of "citable items" (usually articles, reviews, proceedings or notes; not editorials and letters-to-the-Editor) published in 2006 and 2007
      • 2008 impact factor = A / B
      • e.g. 600 citations = 2
      • 150 + 150 articles
    What does the impact factor mean?
  • 14. Influences on Impact Factors: Subject Area
  • 15. Outline
    • TU Delft and Elsevier
    • How to get Published
      • Before you begin
      • Select your audience
      • The review process
    • What not to do…
  • 16. Search Methodology of Researchers
      • “ The search methodology of the researchers can be characterized by “trial and error.” They have no planned search strategy, but start at random, experimenting both with the actual words and sources to use.
      • … they never use manuals, etc., for instructions. The idea of contacting the library for help does not occur to them. They have little or no knowledge of the finer points of many information sources
      • … researchers seldom use the library Web page as starting point … , and instead use bookmarks/shortcuts added by themselves
      • … researchers have difficulties in identifying correct search terms . Searches are often unsuccessful.”
      • “ For many researchers, especially in the sciences, Google is the first choice for information  – all kinds of information.”
      • “ Some [researchers] even state having moved from subject specific databases to Google.”
      • (Haglund and Olson, 2008)
  • 17. Advanced online search Tools
    • Within Google and Google Scholar use the advanced searches and check out the Search Tips.
    • In ScienceDirect, Scopus, WoS/WoK and other databases use proximity operators:
      • w/n
      • pre/n
      • E.g. wind w/3 energy
    Within - (non order specific) Precedes - (order specific)
  • 18. Practical Advice
    • Find out what’s Hot
    • Find the trends of the subject area
      • Search tips (including alerts)
      • Journals, authors, publications per year (Scopus)
    • Evaluate which journal is right for your article
      • Impact Factor
      • Subject Specific Impact Factor ( )
      • SCImago Journal & Country Ranking (
      • Journal Analyzer
      • h- Index
    • Find out more about the journals
      • Who are the editors?
      • Guide for authors
  • 19. Find out what’s Hot
  • 20. Additional metrics
    • SciVal Spotlight
    • SCImago Journal & Country Ranking (
    • SNIP
    • Hirsch Index / h-index
    • Journal Analyzer
    • Eigenfactor (
  • 21. Coming soon!
  • 22.  
  • 23. Make sure you are up-to-date with what’s going on in your field “ Save as Alert”: Remind yourself about the new findings.
  • 24. Register & Personalize your searches
  • 25.  
  • 26. And Finally…… - Guide for authors!
  • 27. Task-based Navigation Traditional & PDF-like Add value & Context Article of the Future! Content & Context
  • 28. Key Article of the Future improvements: content Example: Google Maps, using author-supplied KML files
  • 29. Key Article of the Future improvements: context Example: Protein Viewer, pulling in data from NCBI
  • 30. A o/t F feature: View figures independently of main text Since each pane can be scrolled independently, it is possible to have both the text and an image in view at once Background: We noticed that very often, when the image and related text do not fit the same page, scientists have two PDFs open on their screen (or on two different screens) at the same time. These allow scientists to simultaneously view the image and read the explanatory text
  • 31. Your personal reason for publishing
    • However, editors, reviewers, and the research community don’t consider these reasons when assessing your work.
    • If these are the drivers, consider a career switch
    … ??? Get promoted? Get funding? PhD degree?
  • 32. What is a strong manuscript?
    • Has a novel , clear , useful , and exciting message
    • Presented and constructed in a logical manner
    • Reviewers and editors can grasp the scientific significance easily
    Editors and reviewers but also authors are all busy scientists – make things easy to save their time
  • 33. What is a strong manuscript?
    • A scientific paper is not a research report, but a contribution to the scientific discussions
    • A review is not an overview of the literature (as often in the introduction of a thesis) but a discussion of the literature bringing a new message
    Before writing: Define what it is you want to make clear
  • 34. Determine if you are ready to publish
    • 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 You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a certain scientific field
  • 35. Identify the right audience for your paper
    • Identify the sector of readership/community for which a paper is meant
    • Identify the interest of your audience
    • Is your paper of local or international interest?
  • 36. Choose the right journal
    • Do not just “descend the stairs”
    • Top journals
    • Nature, Science, Lancet, NEJM, ......
    • Field-specific top journals
    • Other field-specific journals
    • National journals
  • 37. Choose the right journal
    • Ask help from your supervisor or colleagues
      • The supervisor (who is sometimes the corresponding author) has at least co-responsibility for your work. You are encouraged to chase your supervisor if necessary.
    • Articles in your references will likely lead you to the right journal.
    • DO NOT gamble by submitting your manuscript to more than one journal at a time.
      • International ethics standards prohibit multiple/simultaneous submissions, and editors DO find out! (Trust us, they DO!)
  • 38. Read the ‘Guide for Authors’! Again and again!
    • 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. It is a sign of disrespect.
  • 39. General Structure of a Research Article
    • Title
    • Abstract
    • Keywords
    • Main text (IMRAD)
      • I ntroduction
      • M ethods
      • R esults
      • A nd
      • D iscussions
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgement
    • References
    • Supplementary Data
    Journal space is not unlimited. Make your article as concise as possible. Make them easy for indexing and searching! (informative, attractive, effective)
  • 40. Scientific Language – Overview
    • Key to successful scientific writing is to be alert for common errors:
      • Sentence construction
      • Incorrect tenses
      • Inaccurate grammar
      • Not using English
    Check the Guide for Authors of the target journal for language specifications Write with clarity, objectivity, accuracy, and brevity.
  • 41. Scientific Language – Sentences
    • Write direct and short sentences
    • One idea or piece of information per sentence is sufficient
    • Avoid multiple statements in one sentence
    An example of what NOT to do: “ If it is the case, intravenous administration should result in that emulsion has higher intravenous administration retention concentration, but which is not in accordance with the result, and therefore the more rational interpretation should be that SLN with mean diameter of 46nm is greatly different from emulsion with mean diameter of 65 nm in entering tumor, namely, it is probably difficult for emulsion to enter and exit from tumor blood vessel as freely as SLN, which may be caused by the fact that the tumor blood vessel aperture is smaller.”
  • 42. The process of writing – building the article Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Figures/tables (your data) Introduction Title & Abstract Conclusion Discussion
  • 43. Authorship
    • Policies regarding authorship can vary
    • One example: the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (“Vancouver Group”) declared that an author must:
      • substantially contribute to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
      • draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content; and
      • give their approval of the final full version to be published.
      • ALL 3 conditions must be fulfilled to be an author!
    All others would qualify as “Acknowledged Individuals” ALL AUTHORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENT
  • 44. Authorship - Order & Abuses
    • 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
        • The first author or a senior author from the institution
          • Particularly when the first author is a PhD student or postdoc, and may move to another institution soon.
    • Abuses to be avoided
      • Ghost Authors : leaving out authors who should be included
      • Gift Authors : including authors who did not contribute significantly
  • 45. Title
    • A good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of a paper.
    • Effective titles
      • Identify the main issue of the paper
      • Begin with the subject of the paper
      • Are accurate, unambiguous, specific, and complete
      • Are as short as possible
        • Articles with short, catchy titles are often better cited
      • Do not contain rarely-used abbreviations
      • Attract readers
  • 46. Title: Examples “ English needs help. The title is nonsense. All materials have properties of all varieties. You could examine my hair for its electrical and optical properties! You MUST be specific. I haven’t read the paper but I suspect there is something special about these properties, otherwise why would you be reporting them?” – the Editor-in-Chief Electrospinning of carbon/CdS coaxial nanofibers with optical and electrical properties Fabrication of carbon/CdS coaxial nanofibers displaying optical and electrical properties via electrospinning carbon Titles should be specific . Think to yourself: “How would I search for this piece of information?” when you design the title. Inhibition of growth of mycobacterium tuberculosis by streptomycin Action of antibiotics on bacteria Long title distracts readers. Remove all redundancies such as “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc. Effect of Zn on anticorrosion of zinc plating layer Preliminary observations on the effect of Zn element on anticorrosion of zinc plating layer Remarks Revised Original Title
  • 47. Keywords
    • In an “electronic world”, keywords determine whether your article is found or not!
    • Avoid to make them
      • too general (“drug delivery”, “mouse”, “disease”, etc.)
      • too narrow (so that nobody will ever search for it)
    • Effective approach:
      • Look at the keywords of articles relevant to your manuscript
      • Play with these keywords, and see whether they return relevant papers, neither too many nor too few
  • 48. Abstract
    • Tell readers what you did and the important findings
    • One paragraph (between 50-300 words)
    • Advertisement for your article
    • A clear abstract will strongly influence if your work is considered further
    Graphite intercalation compounds (GICs) of composition C x N(SO2CF3)2 ·  δ F are prepared under ambient conditions in 48% hydrofluoric acid, using K2MnF6 as an oxidizing reagent. The stage 2 GIC product structures are determined using powder XRD and modeled by fitting one dimensional electron density profiles. A new digestion method followed by selective fluoride electrode elemental analyses allows the determination of free fluoride within products, and the compositional x and δ parameters are determined for reaction times from 0.25 to 500 h. What are the main findings What has been done
  • 49. Introduction
    • The place to convince readers that you know why your work is relevant, also for them
    • Answer a series of questions:
      • What is the problem?
      • Are there any existing solutions?
      • Which one is the best?
      • What is its main limitation?
      • What do you hope to achieve?
    General Specific
  • 50. Pay attention to the following
    • Before you present your new data, put them into perspective first
    • Be brief, it is not a history lesson
    • Do not mix introduction, results, discussion and conclusions. Keep them separate
    • Do not overuse expressions such as “novel”, “first time”, “first ever”, “paradigm shift”, etc.
    • Cite only relevant references
      • Otherwise the editor and the reviewer may think you don’t have a clue where you are writing about
  • 51. Methods / Experimental
    • Include all important details so that the reader can repeat the work.
      • Details that were previously published can be omitted but a general summary of those experiments should be included
    • Give vendor names (and addresses) of equipment etc. used
    • All chemicals must be identified
      • Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds without description
    • Present proper control experiments
    • Avoid adding comments and discussion.
    • Write in the past tense
      • Most journals prefer the passive voice
    • Consider use of Supplementary Materials
      • Documents, spreadsheets, audio, video, .....
    Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect descriptions, and may even recommend rejection
  • 52. Results – what have you found?
    • The following should be included
      • the main findings
        • Thus not all findings
        • Findings from experiments described in the Methods section
      • Highlight findings that differ from findings in previous publications, and unexpected findings
      • Results of the statistical analysis
  • 53. Results – Figures and tables
    • Illustrations are critical, because
      • Figures and tables are the most efficient way to present results
      • Results are the driving force of the publication
      • A figure/table should convey the message besides giving the data of the experiment
    "One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words"  Sue Hanauer (1968)
  • 54. Results – Appearance counts!
      • Un-crowded plots
        • 3 or 4 data sets per figure; well-selected scales; appropriate axis label size; symbols clear to read; data sets easily distinguishable.
      • Each photograph must have a scale marker of professional quality in a corner.
      • Text in photos / figures in English
        • Not in French, German, Chinese, ...
      • Use colour ONLY when necessary.
        • If different line styles can clarify the meaning, then never use colours or other thrilling effects.
      • Colour must be visible and distinguishable when printed in black & white.
      • Do not include long boring tables!
  • 55. Discussion – what do the results mean?
    • Check for the following:
      • How do your results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section?
      • Do you provide interpretation for each of your results presented?
      • Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported? Or are there any differences? Why?
      • Are there any limitations?
      • Does the discussion logically lead to your conclusion?
    • Do not
      • Make statements that go beyond what the results can support
      • Suddenly introduce new terms or ideas
  • 56. Conclusions
    • The conclusion is not a summary of the paper and is no outlook to future work
    • Present global and specific conclusions as a clear take home message
    • Avoid judgments about impact
  • 57. Avoid non-quantitative words, if possible
    • e.g. low/high, extremely, enormous, rapidly, dramatic, massive, considerably, exceedingly, major/minor, …
    • Quantitative descriptions are always preferred
  • 58. Abbreviations
    • Abbreviations must be defined on the first use in both abstract and main text.
    • Some journals even forbid the use of abbreviations in the abstract.
    • Abbreviations that are firmly established in the field do not need to be defined, e.g. DNA.
    • Never define an abbreviation of a term that is only used once.
    • Avoid acronyms, if possible
      • Abbreviations that consist of the initial letters of a series of words
      • Can be typical “lab jargon”, incomprehensible to outsiders
  • 59. Cover Letter
    • Your chance to speak to the editor directly
    • Submitted along with your manuscript
    • Mention what makes your manuscript special to the journal
    • Note special requirements (suggest reviewers, conflicts of interest)
    Final approval from all authors Suggested reviewers Explanation of importance of research
  • 60. The Peer Review Process - Overview Michael Derntl Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.
  • 61. First Decision: “Accepted” or “Rejected”
    • Accepted
    • Very rare, but it happens
    • Congratulations!
      • Cake for the department
      • Now wait for page proofs and then for your article online and in print
    • Rejected
    • Probability 40-90% ...
    • Do not despair
      • It happens to everybody
    • Try to understand WHY
      • Consider reviewers’ advice
      • Be self-critical
    • If you submit to another journal, begin as if it were a new manuscript
      • Take advantage of the reviewers’ comments
      • The same reviewer may again review your manuscript !
      • Read the Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.
  • 62. First Decision: “Major” or “Minor” Revision
    • Minor revision
      • Basically, the manuscript is worth being published
      • Some elements in the manuscript must be clarified, restructured, shortened (often) or expanded (rarely)
      • Textual adaptations
      • “ Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision!
    • Major revision
      • The manuscript may be worth being published
      • Significant deficiencies must be corrected before acceptance
      • Involves (significant) textual modifications and/or additional experiments
  • 63. Outline
    • TU Delft and Elsevier
    • How to get Published
      • Before you begin
      • Select your audience
      • The review process
    • What not to do…
  • 64. Publish AND Perish! – if you break ethical rules
    • International scientific ethics have evolved over centuries and are commonly held throughout the world.
    • Scientific ethics are not considered to have national variants or characteristics – there is a single ethical standard for science.
    • Ethics problems with scientific articles are on the rise globally .
    M. Errami & H. Garner A tale of two citations Nature 451 (2008): 397-399
  • 65. Plagiarism Detection Tools
    • Elsevier is participating in 2 plagiarism detection schemes:
      • Turnitin (aimed at universities)
      • Ithenticate (aimed at publishers and corporations)
    • Manuscripts are checked against a database of 20 million peer reviewed articles which have been donated by 50+ publishers, including Elsevier.
    • All post-1994 Elsevier journal content is now included, and the pre-1995 is being steadily added week-by-week
    • Editors and reviewers
    • Your colleagues
    • "Other“ whistleblowers
      • “ The walls have ears", it seems ...
  • 66. Ethics Issues in Publishing
    • Scientific misconduct
      • Falsification of results
    • Publication misconduct
      • Plagiarism
        • Different forms / severities
        • The paper must be original to the authors
      • Duplicate publication
      • Duplicate submission
      • Appropriate acknowledgement of prior research and researchers
      • Appropriate identification of all co-authors
      • Conflict of interest
  • 67. Data Fabrication and Falsification - often go hand in hand A Massive Case Of Fraud Chemical & Engineering News February 18, 2008 Journal editors are left reeling as publishers move to rid their archives of scientist's falsified research William G. Schulz A CHEMIST IN INDIA has been found guilty of plagiarizing and/or falsifying more than 70 research papers published in a wide variety of Western scientific journals between 2004 and 2007, according to documents from his university, copies of which were obtained by C&EN. Some journal editors left reeling by the incident say it is one of the most spectacular and outrageous cases of scientific fraud they have ever seen. …
  • 68. Data fabrication and falsification
    • Fabrication: Making up data or results, and recording or reporting them
    • “… the fabrication of research data … hits at the heart of our responsibility to society , the reputation of our institution, the trust between the public and the biomedical research community, and our personal credibility and that of our mentors, colleagues…”
    • “ It can waste the time of others , trying to replicate false data or designing experiments based on false premises, and can lead to therapeutic errors. It can never be tolerated.”
    • Professor Richard Hawkes
    • Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy
    • University of Calgary
    “ The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.” G.C.Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
  • 69. Publication ethics – Self-plagiarism 2003 2004 Same colour left and right Same text
  • 70. Publication ethics – How it can end ..... “ I deeply regret the inconvenience and agony caused to you by my mistake and request and beg for your pardon for the same. As such I am facing lot many difficulties in my personal life and request you not to initiate any further action against me. I would like to request you that all the correspondence regarding my publications may please be sent to me directly so that I can reply them immediately. To avoid any further controversies, I have decided not to publish any of my work in future.” A “pharma” author December 2, 2008
  • 71. 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…
  • 72. Figure Manipulation
  • 73. Figure Manipulation Example - Different authors and reported experiments Am J Pathol, 2001 Life Sci, 2004 Life Sci, 2004 Rotated 180 o Rotated 180 o Zoomed out ?!
  • 74. Thank You! Questions welcome