5. Scientific publishing Your goals…. Implement You must publish reports ideas locally in local language Exchange ideas You must publish manuscripts globally in English International Grant Career collaborations applications advancements
6. Scientific publishing Adopt a winning strategy Footballer Scientist Physical fitness Preparation Results Team members Communication Manuscript Rules of the game Understanding Submission process Opposition Knowledge Published literature Win games Tactics Publication record
7. Preparation Good data Impact • Importance? • Significance?Results • Implications? • Who will benefit? Target audience
8. Before you start … Journal Selection 如何选择正确的投稿期刊？
9. Before you start … Factors to consider 你的出版目标是什么？ Indexing status Target audience Impact factor Publication Target type Open access Journal Society Membership Publishing Publishing language frequency
10. Before you start … Evaluating significance: appeal Popular appeal Emerging Personalized diseases Stem Cells medicine Tissue Gene therapy engineering
11. Before you start … Timing• Choose your target journal: – After you have decided you have enough results for a publication – After a decision has been made on how high to aim—high, medium or low impact – Before writing the Title, Abstract, Introduction or Discussion sections
12. Hints and andCoverage tips Your target journal inStaffing Plan minutes not days
13. Hints and andCoverage tipsStaffing Plan Journal Selector Step 1 1. 输入英文文本 文章摘要，简短描述，关键词语或者相似文章的摘要 Insert your proposed abstract
14. Coverage tipsHints and and 2. PlanStaffing过滤和完善 修改示例文本 或者完善结果 影响因子 出版周期 开放获取
15. Coverage tipsHints and and3. 缩小选项Staffing Plan 匹配分析 期刊的 基本信息 曾发表过的 相似文章
16. Coverage tips Hints and and4. 查看期刊网址做出最后选择 Staffing Plan
17. Knowledge Read regularly Published LiteratureImprove your Established Journals writing researchers Topic Good scientifically Journal Club layout/ relevant? structure? Methods/ Conclusions analysis logical? appropriate? 好的读者会成就好的作者
18. Knowledge Reading improves manuscript writing How?What to do Structure & style Journal quality Argument Get new ideas What not to do structure
19. Knowledge How to read an article Title and Abstract Self-assess knowledge of topic Introduction: aims Results: figures, tables, schematics, equations Discussion Introduction and Methods if necessary
20. Any questions? 欢迎提问?
21. Understanding Submission process Peer review Results novel? Topic relevant? Journal requirements met?Manuscript Editor Reject New experiments Improve readability Accepted— Add information publication! Revision
22. Understanding What do journal editors want? Read a good story! Clear and Interesting to theNovel research concise English readers RelevantTopical research scientific Correct format field message 期刊编辑和审稿人需要高质量的学术内容
23. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Inactive Weak research research field motive Inappropriate Incomplete methodology data Inaccurate Poor analysis conclusions
24. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Inactive research field • Scientifically irrelevant • Results can be deduced from literature • Does not advance the field Rejection
25. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Weak research motive • Scientifically irrelevant • Unclear or not explicitly stated • Not supported by data Negative opinion
26. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Incomplete Inappropriate data methodology • Not enough controls/samples • Hinders proper analysis • Conclusions questionable Invalidates study
27. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the science Inaccurate Poor analysis conclusions • Incorrect statistical tests • Inappropriate methods • Use assumptions Invalidates study
28. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Publication ethics ignoredJournal requirements Old references not metPoor grammar and Inappropriate data style presentation
29. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscript Publication ethics ignored • Plagiarism • Multiple submissions • Conflicts of interest not disclosed • Non-compliance with ethical standards Rejection
30. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscriptJournal requirements Old citations not met • Ignore author guidelines • Missing compliance statements • Old/self citations Rejection
31. Avoiding rejection Reasons for rejection: the manuscriptPoor grammar and Inappropriate data style presentation • Unable to follow your logic • Too much data/information • Duplication of results Negative opinion
32. Communication Your manuscript Clear and Tell an Readable concise English interesting story Non-text Tables Figures/Schemes representation Meet reader Editors/Peer Target audience expectations reviewers
33. Hints and and Coverage tips Staffing Plan Write a cover letter!Dear Editor-in-Chief,I am sending you our manuscript entitled “Techniques to detect circoviruses inAustralian bird species” by Raye et al. We would like to have the manuscriptconsidered for publication in Virology Methods Online.Please let me know of your decision at your earliest convenience.Sincerely yours,Warren Raye, PhD附信可以让编辑 向编辑推销你的了解文章内容 文章
34. Hints and and Coverage tips Staffing Plan An effective cover letterDear Dr Reed,Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Amyloid-like inclusions in the brains of Huntington’s disease patients”,by McGowan et al., which we would like to submit for publication as a Research Paper in Neurogenetics.Recent immunohistochemical studies have revealed the presence of neuronal inclusions containing an N-terminal Give theportion of the mutant huntingtin protein and ubiquitin in the brain tissues of Huntington’s disease (HD) patients; background tohowever, the role of these inclusions in the disease process has remained unclear. One suspected disease-causing …. the researchTo confirm if the immunohistochemically observed huntingtin- and ubiquitin-containing inclusions display amyloidfeatures, we performed Congo red staining and both polarizing and confocal microscopy on post-mortem human What wasbrain tissues obtained from five HD patients, two AD patients, and two normal controls. Congo red staining revealed done and whata small number of amyloid-like inclusions showing green birefringence by polarized microscopy, in a variety of…. was foundWe believe our findings would appeal to a broad audience, such as the readership of Neurogenetics. As a wide- Interest toreaching journal publishing original research on all aspects of neuroscience… journal’s readersWe suggest the following potential reviewers: Reviewers with contact detailsConflict of interest forms are attached.……. CompliancePlease address all correspondence to…. statements
35. Coverage and Cover Letters Staffing Plan General rules Address editor Manuscript title/ Background, personally Publication type rationale, results Cover letter Why are your Interest to Reviewerfindings important? readers recommendations
36. Coverage andCover LettersStaffing Plan General rulesOriginal and Not submitted Authors agree onunpublished to other journals paper/journal 必不可少的” 必不可少的 “必不可少的 声明 Conflicts of Source of Authorship interest funding contributions
37. Coverage andCover LettersStaffing Plan Recommending reviewers “When submitting a paper authors are requested to suggest 6 international referees…” “The following items are also required as part of the manuscript submission process:…The names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of four or five potential independent reviewers…”
38. Coverage andHints and tips RecommendingStaffing Plan reviewers From your reading and references Networking/attending conferences Aim for younger and mid-level scientists Provide reasons for recommending or excluding a reviewer Editors have the final decision on reviewer choice
39. Any questions? 欢迎提问?
40. Peer review Improves your manuscript Rejection Acceptance Minor revision Major revision• Few papers are accepted without revision• Rejection and revision are integral• Peer review should be a positive process 同行评审有助于提高稿件质量
41. Peer review Decision letters Reject • Alternative journal • Major or minor revisionsRevision • Deadlines • Deadlines for final versionAccept • File formats
42. Peer Review Decision letter24-July-2012 Manuscript ID numberDear Dr. XXXXXManuscript ID WJS-07-5739: “Long-term outcomes following right-lobe living donor liver transplantation."Your manuscript has been reviewed, and we cannot accept the manuscript as submitted. The reviewerconcerns are included at the bottom of this letter.You can submit a revised manuscript that takes into consideration these comments. You will also need toinclude a detailed commentary of the changes made. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does notguarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission may be subject to re-review by the reviewersbefore a decision is made. Reasons for revisionTo revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wjs and enter your Author Center, whereyou will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Createa Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. … How to submit a revision
43. Peer Review Decision letter…You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise yourmanuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to yourmanuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or colored text. Oncethe revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center. Procedure for respondingWhen submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in thespace provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order toexpedite 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 anyredundant files before completing the submission. Due date for resubmissionBecause we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Surgical Endoscopy, your revisedmanuscript should be uploaded by 12th April 2013 . If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonableamount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Surgical Endoscopy and I look forward to receiving yourrevision.
44. Peer review Understanding reviewer comments “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
45. Peer review Revision • Politely respond to all the referee’s comments in a response letter • Make it easy to see the changes – Refer to line and page numbers – Different color font – Highlight the text 应牢记同行评审人奉献了自己的 时间，因此作者需要谦虚有礼 ，
46. Peer Review Writing a response letterJohn G. HunterEditor-in-ChiefWorld Journal of Surgery Address editor personally16 August 2012 Manuscript ID numberDear Dr. Hunter, Thank reviewersRe: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Long-term outcomes followingright-lobe living donor liver transplantation,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration forpublication in World Journal of Surgery.The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of ourmanuscript. 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 titlehas 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 makeour manuscript suitable for publication in World Journal of Surgery. Highlight major changes
47. Peer Review Point by point responseReviewer comment 1: There are many typosand complicated phrases. This manuscriptshould be corrected by a native English speakerbefore resubmission.Response: Thank you for your comment. Theentire manuscript has undergone English editingby a native speaker.
48. Peer Review Point by point responseReviewer comment 2: This is an interestingdiscussion providing valuable data examiningthe long-term outcomes after living donor livertransplantation.Response: Thank you. We appreciate your kindcomment.
49. Peer Review Point by point responseReviewer comment 3: Some additional background onthe grafting technique used is required in theIntroduction. What are the advantages anddisadvantages of this technique?Response: In accordance with your suggestion, we haveadded a discussion on the advantages anddisadvantages of the grafting technique used in theIntroduction section of the revised manuscript (p4, lines7–13).
50. Peer Review Incorporating your response…The technique used for grafting the transplanted liver tothe recipient liver in this study is the conventional methodused at our institution, and in most living donortransplantation procedures currently being conducted .Right-lobe grafting is the preferred technique because itoffers a better position for surgery, has a decreasedchance of hepatic venous obstruction, and providesgreater hepatic mass than left-lobe grafting. However, thistechnique can be difficult for surgeons to master and caremust be taken when choosing the appropriate plane oftransection to avoid graft congestion .
51. Any questions? 欢迎提问?
52. Hints and and Coverage tips Staffing Plan Speed up submission processEditor Manuscript Cover letter Peer List UpdateEditor review reviewers references Revised Point-by-pointEditor Manuscript response letter
53. Hints and andCoverage tipsStaffing Plan Need help… Format Expert Scientificmanuscript Review Recommend Journals Submitted Manuscript Edit Write Cover Recommend Letter ReviewersWrite Response Point-by-point letter Revised Manuscript responses Answer reviewers comments Re-write