Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Jesús Santamaría

817

Published on

Taller de Autores (Elsevier). Biblioteca de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Mayo 2012

Taller de Autores (Elsevier). Biblioteca de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Mayo 2012

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
817
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 66% rejection rate for 2011 (63% 2010)
  • Journal homepage is a good starting point for determining if article fits within the aims & scope (next slide) and is appropriate for the journal audience (e.g. gauge through downloaded articles, most cited, etc.). Also will provide information for proper formatting and submission requirements (Guide for Authors).
  • Guide for authors will provide information on journal standards for formatting of the article, references, and figures/tables, etc.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Chemical Engineering Journal Jesus Santamaria, Editor (with invaluable help fromAngela Welch, Publishing Editor)1
    • 2. Bibliometry (2007-2010)ISI ranking*(2010 IF):Engineering,Environmental:8/45Engineering,Chemical:10/135*Thompson ISI, JournalCitation Report, © 2011 2
    • 3. ScienceDirect Usage: Downloads (2008-2011)3
    • 4. Geographical breakdown of Authors (2011)4
    • 5. Final Decisions (2007-2011)5
    • 6. Revise Make decision AcceptPresented by: Submit CoverTitle: Image?Date:
    • 7. Breakdown of rejected manuscripts from Chemical Engineering Journal in 2011 based on decision terms in EES. The difference between the total rejected articles (green) and the rejected without review (blue) indicates the number of articles that were rejected post-review. The majority of manuscripts were rejected for not meeting the journal’s standards for research/experimental quality.7
    • 8. Publication speed (2007-2011) average editorial time for Elsevier chemical8 engineering journals (approx 20 weeks)
    • 9. Journal Homepage9
    • 10. Common author mistakes Overlook aims & scope 10
    • 11. Common author mistakes Overlook guide for authors 11
    • 12. Guide for Authors12
    • 13. Some useful tips (often overlooked)  Choose well your Journal  Why Chemical Engineering Journal?  Choose well your type of manuscript13
    • 14. Some useful tips (often overlooked)  Choose well your Editor14
    • 15. Some useful tips (often overlooked) Spend time on your cover letter (and abstract)  Explain the main findings and motivation of the work  Highlight the novelty and significance of the results Choose well the suggested reviewers  The Editor will be more likely to use some of them:  If they are obviously experts in the field  If they are from a different country without obvious link to the authors  (If he/she has difficulties finding candidates) 15
    • 16. Some useful tips (often overlooked)  Introduction is especially important!  You are telling a story. Introduction sets the scenario  Quote what is necessary for background and to give credit to previous works. Do not add superfluous references.  Editors will often choose reviewers from cited work  Give a clear motivation for the work.  Explain what is novel compared to what is already available in the literature16
    • 17. Some useful tips (often overlooked)  Results and discussion  Together or separate?  You are telling a story. Keep the narrative flowing, concise, well organized.  Be rigorous. Do not make statements that are not supported by your data.17
    • 18. Some useful tips (often overlooked)  Conclusions  Not the same as a summary!  Give conclusions that are supported by your resuts  Do not overreach. Statements such as “this method can be potentially used…” do not belong to the conclusions (and often irritate referees)18
    • 19. Once you receive your reviews  Minor revision  Good job. Just do what you are told and resubmit quickly.  Rejection  It may be disappointing, but most of the times the reviewers are right (and yes, they did understand the paper; and no, they are not biased against you)  If you think you have been unfairly treated you may appeal. But this should be exceptional.19
    • 20. Once you receive your reviews  Major revision  Major is “major”. Take it very seriously.  Answer all the comments received, one by one, explaining the changes made to the manuscript in response to the remarks (or the reason why a modification is not required).  Go straight to the point. Refer to what the comment is about, and not something else.  If you feel a remark is not justified or a request is unreasonable, say so, but substantiate your response.  If in doubt, the Editor is likely to send it back to the referees.  Submit a revised version where the changes have been highlighted.20
    • 21. After acceptance  Be diligent with any last minute requests (e.g. Quality of figures, format adjustments)  Return the proofs quickly. But make sure you revise them thoroughly (it is your last chance to correct any mistakes before your manuscript is published)  Decide whether or not to submit a figure for the Journal cover. Decision will be based on both paper quality and figure impact.21
    • 22. Journal Covers & Featured ArticlesFeatured Articles (2012) FREE on ScienceDirect until 8 August 2012Submission details available on the CEJ homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cej 22
    • 23. YO UR OR ! S F ION HA NK NT T TE AT23

    ×