Making editors happy


Published on

Things to think about when writing for publication including tips to make editors happy

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Making editors happy

  1. 1. Enhancing publication potential or How to make editors very happy people Carol Haigh Clinical Editor: Journal of Clinical Nursing
  2. 2. Who should I submit to? <ul><li>Depends on why you are submitting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wide range of publications and topics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cohesive theme and related papers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online or hard copy journal? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do you want/need to think about ‘author pays’ model </li></ul><ul><li>Plan on getting rejected by the best before your move onto ‘the rest’ </li></ul><ul><li>Are impact factors important? </li></ul><ul><li>(What?) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Impact factors (I.F) <ul><li>Devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, now part of Thomson, a large worldwide US-based publisher. Published on the Web of Knowledge site </li></ul><ul><li>There are other companies now that also do this but Thomson is still the market leader </li></ul>
  4. 4. Things to think about when looking for a publication platform and I.F <ul><li>New journals, that are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an Impact Factor after the completion of two years' indexing </li></ul><ul><li>Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not have an Impact Factor published until three complete data-years are known </li></ul>
  5. 5. I.F - Pros <ul><li>Web of Knowledge indexes 9000 science and social science journals from 60 countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Results are widely (though not freely) available. </li></ul><ul><li>It is an objective measure. </li></ul><ul><li>In practice, the alternative measure of quality is &quot;prestige.&quot; This is rating by reputation, which is very slow to change, and cannot be quantified or objectively used. It merely demonstrates popularity. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>JCN = 1.301 JAN = 1.442 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NET = 0.573 Nature = 28.751 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. I.F Cons <ul><li>The number of citations to papers in a particular journal does not really directly measure the true quality of a journal, much less the scientific merit of the papers within it </li></ul><ul><li>Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's impact factor for example an editor of a journal may encourage authors to cite articles from that journal in the papers they submit. </li></ul><ul><li>But………………….. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>If you are publishing because… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You want an academic post </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want to influence the thinkers in your field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want a PhD by published work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want to enhance your ‘academic’ credibility’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then I.F might be important to you </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Title & Key Words <ul><li>Final suggested title –clear, concise, informative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Title is important to attract readers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some publishers choose the final title </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Catchy and “cute” titles are amusing and easily remembered, but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They are generally not informative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They are difficult to code for search, present retrieval problems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intelligent key words will help to find a reviewer who will understand your work </li></ul>
  9. 9. Don’t send…… <ul><ul><li>a descriptive paper to a journal that only publishes “hard data” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>don’t send a 25 page paper if 10 is the limit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>don’t send 10,000 words if the limit is 3,500 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a paper that is not in the style of the journal (giveaway that the journal was your 2nd choice) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A paper that was clearly an assignment for a university course </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Before submission… <ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read, </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read, </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul>
  11. 11. After submission <ul><li>E-mail of acknowledgement </li></ul><ul><li>Article sent to blinded peer reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>You wait </li></ul><ul><li>Editor makes a decision guided by but not directed by reviewers comments </li></ul><ul><li>Decision letter from editor (with reviewers comments) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Decisions <ul><li>Accept (V. rare) minor revision, major revision, reject & resubmit, reject </li></ul><ul><li>Although it’s hard don’t take rejection personally. </li></ul><ul><li>If you are asked for multiple revisions decide how much work you are prepare to do </li></ul>
  13. 13. Then…. <ul><li>Revised paper resubmitted (to deadline = happy editor) </li></ul><ul><li>Letter of acceptance of further revision </li></ul><ul><li>Wait for proofs to check </li></ul><ul><li>Send proofs back (to deadline = happy editor) </li></ul><ul><li>Online early so it counts as a publication from that point </li></ul><ul><li>In print (there may be a bit of a delay) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Things that make editors irritable 1-5 <ul><li>Authors who plainly haven’t read the journal info. </li></ul><ul><li>Papers from English authors that are full of spelling errors </li></ul><ul><li>Authors (and reviewers) who do not meet re-sub deadlines </li></ul><ul><li>Papers with nothing new to add </li></ul><ul><li>Papers from conferences or courses submitted in original format </li></ul>
  15. 15. Things that make editors irritable 6-11 <ul><li>Redundant or duplicate publications </li></ul><ul><li>Inappropriate papers </li></ul><ul><li>Inappropriate style </li></ul><ul><li>Papers that are too country specific </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Salami slicing’ </li></ul><ul><li>Plagiarism ( even of yourself) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Things that make editors happy 1-5 <ul><li>Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>International Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Robust reporting </li></ul><ul><li>Cutting edge or something very different </li></ul><ul><li>Good presentation </li></ul>
  17. 17. Things that make editors happy 6-11 <ul><li>Papers that have breadth </li></ul><ul><li>Intelligent use of key words </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate style and language </li></ul><ul><li>Papers that have clearly been read over before submission </li></ul><ul><li>Clarity of information about ethics, conflict of interest etc </li></ul><ul><li>Author lists that are reasonable, or at least feasible </li></ul>
  18. 18. Get insight in to how the process works <ul><li>Become a reviewer for your journal of choice (Doesn’t necessarily guarantee publication of your work tho’) </li></ul><ul><li>Go to ‘meet the editors’ sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Submit editorials </li></ul>
  19. 19. Other things that will help…. <ul><li>If you are reporting numbers make sure the numbers add up </li></ul><ul><li>If you are reporting qualitative data make sure your analytical techniques are clear </li></ul><ul><li>If you needed ethical approval make sure you confirm you got it </li></ul><ul><li>Make sure your participants are protected at all times </li></ul>
  20. 20. Thank you for your attention Deadline 5 p.m
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.