• Save
20130703 Edanz Session 2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,107
On Slideshare
1,019
From Embeds
88
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 88

http://www.edanzediting.co.jp 88

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

Transcript

  • 1. Elements of a Good Submission: Raising Your Chances of Acceptance Amanda Hindle Senior Editor Edanz Group 10 July 2013
  • 2.  Research & publication ethics  Journal selection  Cover letters: How to appeal to journal editors  Responding to peer review Session 2 …
  • 3. Research & Publication Ethics Section 1
  • 4. Publisher Challenges Ethics Research ethics Why are they important? Create standards for research Promote subject-specific values Instill trust from the public Promote moral and social values
  • 5. Publisher Challenges Ethics Research ethics Personal information protection Informed consent Institutional Review Board approval Human Subjects
  • 6. Publisher Challenges Ethics Informed consent  Purpose of study  Procedures  Risks/benefits  Any influencing factors  Confidentiality procedures  Incentives
  • 7. Publisher Challenges Ethics Informed consent Purpose of study  Procedures  Risks/benefits  Any influencing factors Confidentiality procedures  Incentives
  • 8. Publisher Challenges Ethics Personal information protection Remove all identifying details  Age, name, gender, ethnicity BUT: may be useful individually!  Encode data  Collect only relevant personal details
  • 9. Publisher Challenges Ethics Publication ethics  Multiple submissions  Data fabrication or falsification  Conflicts of interest  Improper author contribution  Plagiarism
  • 10. Publisher Challenges Ethics Plagiarism  Direct copying without attribution  Statements AND ideas  Self-plagiarism Paraphrase Direct quotes Citations
  • 11. Publisher Challenges Ethics Plagiarism: Citations  Refer to related research  Attribution to original author  Use journal style  Paraphrase Krasnova et al. Identity in the Information Society 2009; 2:39-63
  • 12. Publisher Challenges Ethics Plagiarism: Paraphrasing Finally, Facebook intensity predicted increased levels of maintained social capital, which assessed the extent to which participants could rely on high school acquaintances to do small favors. For college students, many of whom have moved away for the first time, the ability to stay in touch with these high school acquaintances may illustrate most clearly the "strength of weak ties" outlined by Granovetter (1973, 1982). Krasnova et al. Identity in the Information Society 2009; 2:39-63 Ellison et al. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 2007; 12:1
  • 13. Publisher Challenges Ethics Plagiarism: Direct quotes  Partial or full quotes  Still must identify source  Slogans, proprietary content, speeches Krasnova et al. Identity in the Information Society 2009; 2:39-63
  • 14. Publisher Challenges Ethics Authorship  Substantial intellectual contribution Does NOT include: • Funding bodies • Technical assistance • General supervision Acknowledgements Conception and design of the study Data acquisition, analysis, interpretation Drafting, revision & approval of manuscript
  • 15. Publisher Challenges Ethics Consequences of unethical behavior Loss of employmentLoss of business Journals banUnable to publish
  • 16. Journal Selection Section 2
  • 17. Journal Selection Factors to consider  Aims and scope  Readership  Open access  Publishing frequency  Impact factor Which factor is most important to you?
  • 18. Journal Selection Choosing a target journal  Journal selection must be based on an honest evaluation of your manuscript Significance Aims and Scope Impact
  • 19. Journal Selection New findings Evaluating significance: Novelty Medium to high impact  How new are my results compared with those already published? Low to medium impact Incremental advances Conceptual advances
  • 20. Journal Selection Evaluating significance: Relevance How broadly relevant is my work? Restricted to geographical location? How widely applicable is the problem? Environment Specific to a certain business model? Relevant to global issues? Economics How broadly applicable are the results? Population-specific? Culture Studies
  • 21. Journal Selection Evaluating significance: Appeal  Is my work in an area of ‘popular appeal’  Examples:  Social media  Green energy  3D printing  Ecotourism  Global warming  Food security
  • 22. Cover Letters Section 3
  • 23. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters Make it easy Is there a Cover Letter? Is it easy to read? Are there reviewer recommendations? Inbox
  • 24. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Climate change and developing African landscapes” by Raye et al. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Regional Environmental Change. Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Warren Raye, PhD  Competition for publication space and for editors’ attention is very high Cover letters
  • 25. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters Dear Dr Boros, Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of Risk Adjusted Net Present Value Models for Pricing of Investigational New Drugs”, by Pack et al., which we would like to submit for publication as an Original Paper in Annals of Operations Research. Estimates of the cost of bringing a new drug onto the market range from 100 million dollars to over 1.2 Billion dollars. Given that drug development can last over ten years, it is essential that pharmaceutical firms have an effective way to estimate the value of Investigational New Drugs (INDs). An accurate assessment of the value of INDs can help pharmaceutical firms better allocate resources to higher value products. However, standard valuation methods do not adequately value the high risk of failure in drug development. We compiled a list of the 610 INDs filed in the United States in 1998, and used publically accessible information find the failure rate at each stage. We then used the S&P 500 Index and US treasury rates to calculate the market and risk free rate, respectively. With this information, we calculated the value of the INDs using Risk Adjusted Net present value, and compared it to the actual rate of return. We found that our model over-estimated the average rate of return by 5%. We believe that our findings will be of great interest to operations researchers, and specifically those involved in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, we believe that Annals of Operations Research is the best choice for our manuscript… We recommend the following reviewers: …. Give the background to the research What was done and what was found Interest to journal’s readers A good cover letter
  • 26. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters General rules General rules Manuscript title/ Publication type Corresponding author details Background, rationale, results Address editor personally Why are your findings important? Reviewer recommendations “Must-have” statements
  • 27. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters General rules “Must-have” statements Not submitted to other journals Source of funding Authors agree on paper/journal Original and unpublished Conflicts of interest Authorship contributions
  • 28. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters “Owing to the broad range of subject matter, authors are encouraged to supply the names of one or more potential referees.” “The body of the email should provide: Nominations (optional) of up to four recommended reviewers who possess suitable expertise and who have no conflict of interest with the author or paper being reviewed. NCMR will make an effort to select one author-nominated reviewer.” Recommending reviewers
  • 29. Coverage and Staffing Plan Cover Letters Recommending reviewers  From your reading and references  Networking  Aim for younger and mid-level researchers  Editors have the final decision on reviewer choice
  • 30. Peer Review Section 4
  • 31. Peer Review Improves your manuscript  Few papers are accepted without revision  Rejection and revision are integral to the peer review process Acceptance Minor revision Major revision Rejection
  • 32. Peer Review  Peer review is a positive process  Improves research  Recommend to get involved in the peer review process http://www.springer.com/authors/ journal+authors/peer-review-academy Improves your manuscript
  • 33. Peer Review Accepted— publication! EditorManuscript Peer review Revision Reject Results novel? Topic relevant? Journal requirements met? Additional data or background Improve readability Submission process
  • 34. Peer Review Decision letter Manuscript ID number Reasons for revision How to submit a revision 24-July-2012 Dear Dr. XXXXX Manuscript ID REC-07-5739: “Climate change and developing African landscapes." Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we cannot accept the manuscript as submitted. The reviewer concerns are included at the bottom of this letter. You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need to include a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is made. To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wjs and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. …
  • 35. Peer Review …You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s). IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission. Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Surgical Endoscopy, your revised manuscript should be uploaded by August 31, 2012. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Regional Environmental Change and I look forward to receiving your revision. Decision letter Procedure for responding Due date for resubmission
  • 36. Peer Review  Conduct additional experiments and analyses as suggested  If this is impossible, you must explain why  You can disagree with reviewers, but provide evidence (cite references) Revision
  • 37. Peer Review Responding to revision Revision Respond to every comment Refer to line and page numbers Use a different color font Highlight the text Easy to see changes Polite & professional
  • 38. Peer Review Writing a response letter Address editor personally Manuscript ID number Thank reviewers Highlight major changes Wolfgang Cramer Editor-in-Chief Regional Environmental Change 16 August 2012 Dear Dr. Cramer, Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. REC-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Climate change and developing African landscapes,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in Regional Environmental Change. The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as underlined text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Regional Environmental Change.
  • 39. Peer Review Point-by-point response Reviewer comment 1: There are many typos and complicated phrases. This manuscript should be corrected by a native English speaker before resubmission. Response: Thank you for your comment. The entire manuscript has undergone English editing by a native speaker.
  • 40. Peer Review Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat complicated formula to assess the impact of temperature increases on village river usage. In my opinion, a simple time-course graph would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more useful in terms of predictive trends. Response: We chose this function to incorporate several secondary influencing factors into the analysis. However, we agree with the reviewer’s assessment that the analysis makes interpretation of the data in terms of predictive trends very difficult. We have redone the analysis using a time-course graph, showing access trends and temperature along the same scale. Agreement
  • 41. Peer Review Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat complicated formula to assess the impact of temperature increases on village river usage. In my opinion, a simple time-course graph would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more useful in terms of predictive trends. Response: We agree with the reviewer that our analysis makes interpretation of the data in terms of predictive trends somewhat difficult. However, our function incorporates several secondary influencing factors, which we feel provides a more robust analysis of the issue. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function. Disagreement
  • 42. Peer Review “The English needs to be improved” “Your writing is difficult to understand”  Grammar and spelling  Long, complex sentences and paragraphs  Gaps in the logic  Poor manuscript organization  Too much information Understanding reviewer comments
  • 43. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publish Faster What happens next?  Second round of review? Acceptance! Editor assigned: peer review or acceptance Manuscript re-submitted Reviewers evaluate: accept, reject or revise Manuscript sent to original reviewers Additional revisions
  • 44. Coverage and Staffing Plan Publish Faster Publishing timeline  3–12 months …  Why so long?  Manuscript type  Availability of peer reviewers  Number of revisions  Other?
  • 45. Coverage and Staffing Plan Final Steps Clear, concise, accurate writing Appropriate journal for your manuscript Compliance with Instructions for Authors Cover letter  Suggest peer reviewers  Suggest potential editors  Declare conflicts of interests Checklist for acceptance
  • 46. Any questions? Thank you! Follow us on Twitter @JournalAdvisor Like us on Facebook facebook.com/JournalAdvisor