The Life Course of your
Academic Paper from
a Journal Editor’s Perspective
Matteo Cavalleri
physica status solidi
Wiley-VCH
Dahlem Research School - Transferable Skills » 23.07.09

Outline
• Who I am and Where I work
• Why and Where to publish?
• Peer review
• The review process
– What editors and referees look for
– Accept, reject, or revise: how decisions are made
and how to respond
• Copyright and copyright transfer
• Publishing ethics
• Selecting the journal
– Impact factor is not everything

Who am I?
• Native of Como, Italy
• M.S. @ University of Milan
– Erasmus in Valencia, Spain
• Ph.D. @ Stockholm University
– Thesis ―Local structure of
hydrogen-bonded liquids‖
• Postdoc @ FHI-MPG, Berlin
– Theory Department
– Surface science, catalysis
• Editor, Wiley-VCH
– Office, Berlin F-hain
– physica status solidi (pss)
• 19 published papers
– Science, JCP, J. Cat., pss, …
– h-index: 12

Wiley-VCH-Blackwell
• Global publishing business
– Founded in NYC in 1807
– Specialized in academic publishing
– +3500 employes, 1.6 b$ revenues
• Acquisition VCH in 1996
– Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 1921
– Akademie Verlag, East Berlin, 1946 (to VCH
1991)
• Acquisition Blackwell Publishing in 2007
– ~ 1400 academic journals

physica status solidi
• Founded in East Berlin, 1961
– Published in English, not subjected to state control
• 4 Journals focused on Solid State Physics
– physica status solidi (a) – Applications and Devices
– physica status solidi (b) – Basic Solid State Physics
– physica status solidi (c) – Conference Proceedings
– physica status solidi – Rapid Research Letters
• Internal Editorial Office in Berlin, F-hain
– Editor-in-chief: Prof. Martin Stutzmann (TUM)
– Managing Editor: Dr. Stefan Hildebrandt
• ~ 2000 articles published/year

The Editorial Office
• Editor-in-Chief • Technical Editor
– Direct policy decisions, – Copy-editing
future directions – Language polishing
– May or may not be also • Production Editor
Managing Editor
– Process accepted
• Managing Editor papers for ―production‖
– Overview peer-review – Assemble issue
process, editorial office
• Editorial Board
• Editor – Advise Editor-in-chief
• Editorial Assistant – Adjudicators in critical
– Interact with authors cases
and reviewers – Help with topical issues
– No decision-making acquisitions
powers

What editors do
• Manage peer-review, pre-screen manuscripts
• Take the editorial decision over manuscripts
• Invite authors for feature/review articles
• Organize/Plan topical issues with Guest
Editors
• Promote journal at conferences
• Communicate with Editorial Board
• Assemble issue (with Production Editor)
– Cover layout
– Editorials, extra contents (news, call for papers,
meeting calendar, ...)

Why publish?
• Fame • Making your
– Recognition by your research public
peers
– ―If your research
• Fortune
does not generate
– Promotions
papers, it might just
– Grant applications
as well not have
• Establish precedence been done.‖
• Responsibility – Papers provide the
– Taxpayer-funded shoulders that others
research can stand on

Publish where?
• Peer-reviewed journals
– Subscription based
– Open Access (Authors
Pay)
• Books
• Internet Repository
– Nature precedings
– arXiv.org
• Blogs, your Webpage
• Conference Proceedings

What is peer review?
• ―Peer review is the critical
assessment of manuscripts
submitted to journals by experts who
are not part of the editorial staff.‖
– International Committee of Medical Journals
Editors, from Hames, p. 1.

What is peer review?
• ―[Peer review] is the worst form of
[research evaluation] except all those
other forms that have been tried from
time to time.‖
– Winston Churchill, 1947 (paraphrased)

Types of peer review
• Anonymous • Signed
– Most common – Non-anonymous referees
• Double-blind • Technical peer review only
– Medical journals – Evaluation by community
• Open after publication
– Nature experiment – PLOS One
– Atmospheric Chemistry • None
and Physics – Evaluation by community
after publication
– arXiv.org

What should peer review do?
• Filter out bad work
• Identify work of great interest to readership
• Make as sure as possible that work is
reported correctly
• Make sure results have been interpreted
correctly and convincingly
• Improve the quality of the publication
- Critical feedback - New ideas
Competitive and cooperative

What it doesn’t do (automatically)
• Detect fabrication
• Prevent duplicate publication
• Ensure the paper is right for the
journal
• Pick the most interesting papers
• Ensure quality
Relays on trust

The review process

Submitting …
...and Today
Yesterday...

…Editorial prescreening…

What editors look for
• What all editors look • What some journals
for require
– Scope – Novelty
• Does the topic fit the • How different is it
journal? from previous work?
– Format – Importance
• Communication, full • In those in specific
paper, review… field
– Understandability • To those in related
• Readability, clarity,… fields
– Interest
Editors are normally not qualified to evaluate the technical merits
of manuscripts: this is the job of the referees.

What editors look for
• Cover letter to editor and conclusion
– Did they interest you? If not, they will be
unlikely to interest our readers.
• References and introduction
– Is topic in scope?
– Is the work important and relevant?
– Are references up to date?
– Does the paper adhere to guidelines?
• Method and discussion
– Does it seems technically correct?
– Figures are critical!
Basically, is the work new, interesting and solid?

How referees are chosen
• Referee database
– >10,000 in Wiley-VCH database
– Keywords, interests, history
• Author suggestions
– very helpful!
– ―Big names‖ are often busy—highly qualified, less-well-known
scientists even better choices
– Respect of authors exclusion requests of reviewers
• Related papers
– Cited in manuscript
– Literature searches
• Editor’s knowledge and experience

Conflicts of interest
• Potential conflicts of interest:
– Competitor that could ―scoop‖ you
– Current or former collaborators, grant co-applicants
– Members of your institution
– Current or former thesis or postdoc advisor
• Anyone you believe could not give an impartial
report
– within reason…

…Refereeing…
Reviewers advise and make recommendations,
Editors make the decisions

What referees look for
• Is the motivation • Are the results
clear? important?
• Is the motivation • Are the results
important? interesting?
• Is the work novel and • Are the correct
original? references cited?
• Are the conclusions • Is the English
supported by the satisfactory?
data? • Is the presentation
• Are there ethical clear?
questions?
Think like a referee: Wiley-VCH Material Science’s guidelines for referees

Side note: Refereeing a manuscript
• When you receive a • If you can’t review:
request: – Tell the editor ASAP
– Am I familiar with the – Suggest alternative
topic? reviewers
– Do I have time? • If you can review:
• Budget 2—5 hours! – Submit on time
– Can I meet the deadline? – Keep manuscript
– Do I have conflicts of confidential
interest? – Contact the editor with
– Do I read/publish in this questions, not the authors
journal?

…Referees suggestions
• Acceptance
– Without changes
– Subject to changes
• Rejection
• Revision
– Reconsideration and resubmission possible after major
revisions

Rejection
• Direct (―in-house‖) • On reports
– Outside scope – Technical/scientific issues
– Wrong format – Motivation
– Novelty unclear unclear/unimportant
– Impact/importance – Less novel, less original
unclear – Conclusions do not
– Interest unclear support the data
– … – Results less important
– Results less interesting
– Ethical questions
– Unclear presentation

Should I appeal?
• Usually, no • Occasionally, yes
– Editors and referees – Importance / impact /
know journal novelty missed by
– Criticisms may be editor/referees
valid! • Need for a good
cover letter!
– Risk of long time to
publication – Factual errors in
referee reports that led
– Good papers are cited
to rejection
Be calm, argumentative and provide new information in the appeal

Revision
• Carefully consider referee • Prepare revision
comments – Revise manuscript
– Not all changes have to • Highlight changes in
be made… manuscript
– …but need convincing – Point-by-point response
arguments for changes to all referee criticisms
not made • Changes made
• Why changes not made
– Response may go back to
referees!
• Need to convince editor
and referees

Acceptance
• Congratulations! • In the Editorial Office
• Revise manuscript – Typesetting
– Highlight changes in – Language polishing
manuscript • If necessary
– Point-by-point response – Copy-editing
to all referee criticisms • Same journals
• Changes made • Technical Editors
• Why changes not made
• Production data checklist
• On the web first
– Text format
– Within days after acceptance
– Figure preparation
– Wiley’s ―Early View‖
• Proofs
– Assigned DOI number
– Return quickly!
• In printed issue
– Check copyediting
changes/queries – Journal frequency
– Ask colleague to check

Copyright
• Copyright protects • Copyright does not
works ―fixed‖ in a protect ideas
―tangible‖ form of – Patents
expression • Copyright does not
– Words protect names,
– Images symbols
– Scientific papers – Trademarks

Copyright owner rights
• The copyright owner • Journal publishers
has exclusive rights to need to
– Reproduce and – Reproduce and
distribute copies distribute copies
– Make derivative works • Print journals
• Translations, – Make derivative works
abridgements, • Copyedit
adaptations • Layout
– Display publicly • Typeset
• On a web page – Display publicly
• www.pss-a.com

Copyright transfer
• Publisher cannot legally • Wiley-VCH materials
publish copyrighted work science journals:
without publishing rights – Rights transferred upon
• Author transfers publishing acceptance
rights to publisher – Publishing license
– Usually exclusive • Exclusive for 3 years
– Can be limited time • Nonexclusive thereafter
– In print and/or online – In print (journal copies)
– Online (www.pss-a.com)

Copyright permissions
• Example: including a figure • Identify the figure
that has been published • Is it subject to copyright
elsewhere in the review protection?
I’m writing – Public domain
• Acquiring permissions is (government agencies)
usually the author’s – Expired copyright
responsibility • Identify owner and request
• Not subject to ―fair use‖ permission in writing
• Forward result to publisher
• Attribute original source in
figure caption

What if it is my article?!
• If exclusive publishing • If derivative work
rights transferred to made by publisher,
publisher, need need permission
permission – Example: figure
– Some publisher redrawn by journal to
agreements improve presentation
automatically transfer • Review journal needs
scholarly publishing permission agreement
reprint rights back to
author to legally publish

Publishing ethics
• Code of conduct for • Ethical guidelines
scientists – Authors
• Peer review relies on – Editors
trust – Referees
– Does not test for fraud • Journals follow
• Science ideally should – EuCheMS guidelines
be competitive, but – ACS guidelines
fair – …

Author responsibilities
• Present data honestly and accurately, not
fabricate or falsify data
• Reference and cite properly, not plagiarize or
ignore related work
• Avoid fragmentation and redundant publication
• Inform the editor of related manuscripts under
consideration or in press
• Submit to only one journal at a time
• Disclose conflicts of interest
More information under “For Authors” at pss-a.com

Editor responsibilities
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing
• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting
• Base decision to accept or reject only on the merits of the
manuscript
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for their
own research
• Ensure fair selection of referees, including those suggested
or requested for exclusion by author
• Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct
• Deal fairly with author appeals

Referee responsibilities
• Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts
• Inform editor quickly if not qualified or unable to review
• Judge manuscript objectively and in timely fashion
• Return to editor without review if conflict of interest
• Explain and support recommendations with arguments and
references where appropriate
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for one’s
own research
• Inform editor of similarities between submitted manuscript
and published or unpublished manuscripts elsewhere
• Inform editor if plagiarized or falsified data is suspected
More information under “For Referees” at pss-a.com

Selecting the journal
• Journal Impact Factor • Where do you read
is not everything! papers related to your
• What are the research? Which do
implications of your you like the most?
research? • What is the scope of
• How important will your candidate
others find your journal?
research? • What is the format of
– In your field? your candidate
– In related fields? journal?

Journal Impact Factor (IF)
Devised by Eugene Garfield, founder of ISI
(Chairman Emeritus of Thomson Scientific)
1955

Journal Impact Factor (IF)
• The journal impact factor is the average number of times
articles from the journal published in the past two years have
been cited in the JCR year. The impact factor is calculated by
dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total
number of articles published in the two previous years.
Citations
C12
published
Articles A1 A2 time
published
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Journal Impact Factor (IF)
• The journal impact factor is the average number of times
articles from the journal published in the past two years have
been cited in the JCR year. The impact factor is calculated by
dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total
number of articles published in the two previous years.
Citations
100
published
Articles 40 60 time
published
2005 2006 2007

Impact Factor is relative
 Average Impact Factors vary from subject to subject
• Median IF: Median value of all IFs in category
• Aggregate IF: IF of category calculated as if entire category
were one journal

Journal Immediacy Index
• The immediacy index is the average number of times an
article is cited in the year it is published. The immediacy index
is calculated by dividing the number of citations to articles
published in a given year by the number of articles published
in that year.
Citations
C3 published
Articles time
A3
published
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Journal Immediacy Index
• The immediacy index is the average number of times an
article is cited in the year it is published. The immediacy index
is calculated by dividing the number of citations to articles
published in a given year by the number of articles published
in that year.
Citations
60 published
Articles time
100
published
2005 2006 2007

And more Indices
• Journal Cited Half-Life
– Median age of article cited in
the JCR year
• 5-Year Journal Impact Factor
• Eigenfactor Score
– http://www.eigenfactor.org
– 5-Year impact factor, no self
citations (within same journal)
– Weights each4(6): e6022
PLoS ONE 2009
reference
according to a stochastic
measure of the amount of time
researchers spend reading the
journal
• Article Influence Score
– Eigenfactor Score normalized
by number of published articles

Selecting the journal
• Journal Impact Factor • Where do you read
is not everything! papers related to your
• What are the research? Which do
implications of your you like the most?
research? • What is the scope of
• How important will your candidate
others find your journal?
research? • What is the format of
– In your field? your candidate
– In related fields? journal?

Selecting the journal
• What is the journal’s copyright policy?
• Is that subscription based or Open
Access?
• How fast is their submission to publication
time?
• What is the journal’s policy on prior
publication?
– In peer-reviewed online only/printed journals
– In online/only printed conference proceedings
– In online preprint servers (arXiv,…)
– On your website

By Nick Kim (www.nearingzero.net); used with permission

Thank you and to…
• Dr. Dave Flanagan (Advanced Functional Materials)
• Dr. Barbara Janssens (Biotechnology Journal)
• Dr. Stefan Hildebrandt (physica status solidi)
• Dr. Sabine Bahrs (physica status solidi)

Resources
• Peer review
– I Hames, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals, 2007
– E Wager, F Godlee, T Jefferson, How to Survive Peer Review, 2002
– Sense About Science, Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas (www.senseaboutscience.org.uk)
– Nature’s Peer Review Debate (www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate)
– Advanced Materials “Guide for Authors” (www.advmat.de)
• Impact Factor and h-index
– JE Hirsch, PNAS 2005, 102(46), 16569 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102)
– J Bollen, H Van de Sompel, A Hagberg, R Chute, PLoS ONE 2009 4(6): e6022. (DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022)
– ISI Web of Knowledge (www.isiknowledge.com/)
– Journal Citation Reports
(thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/scholarly_research_analysis/research_evaluation/journal_cita
tion_reports)
• Publishing ethics
– EuCheMS Ethical Guidelines for Publication in Journals and Reviews (www.euchems.org/Publications/)
– ACS Ethical Guidelines (pubs.acs.org/ethics/)
– COPE – the Committee on Publishing Ethics (www.publicationethics.org.uk/about)
• Preparing the manuscript
– AM Coghill, LR Garson, ACS Style Guide, 3rd edition, 2006
– GM Whitesides, ―Writing a Paper‖ Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375 (DOI: 10.1002/adma.200400767)
– Advanced Materials ―Guide for Authors‖ (www.advmat.de)
– Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 2003
mcavalleri@wiley.com