Graham Fleet publication in scholarly journals


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • 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

Graham Fleet publication in scholarly journals

  1. 1. Publication in scholarly journals Graham H FleetFood Science GroupSchool of Chemical Engineering,University of New South WalesSydneyAustraliaEmail
  2. 2. Why publish?? Communicate new knowledgeCommunicate new understanding, new ideas Build your national, international reputation and and profile
  3. 3. Which journal ???• Journal scope—very important ; read journal instructions!!• Impact factor ??• International• Local/ national• Cost $$$
  4. 4. The review process• Author manuscript• Receipt by journal publisher• Administrative technical assessment ( English, correct format, style)• Chief editor assessment ( pass on to editor/reject)• Editor assessment ( worthy of review/ reject)• Reviewer selection, sent out for review, 2-3 reviewers• Reviewer reports to editor ( accept/revise/reject)• Editor decision ( accept/revise/reject)• Chief editor advises author• Author revision, return revised ms to journal• Chief editor editor• Editor decision , accept/ revision 2/ revision 3 !!• Chief editor advises author
  5. 5. Criteria for acceptance• Within journal scope and conform to journal formatting requirements• Scientific novelty—new information and understanding that advances the field• Confirmation of relatively recent knowledge and understanding• Good experimental plan, methods, sampling• Adequate repetition of experiments and analyses• Accurate interpretation and discussion of experimental results
  6. 6. Criteria for acceptance Presentation is very important• Precise and meaningful title• Introduction: no more than 2.5x A4 double spaced pages , about 750 words. Background knowledge, gap in knowledge, why your proposed research is needed, clear statement of objectives. Sharply focused to points of relevance. Not a literature survey
  7. 7. Presentation Materials and methods• Clear, concise description of experimental procedures and methods ,referenced• Sub-sections, sub-headings (eg sampling of fruit; juice extraction and preparation; wine fermentation; isolation , enumeration and identification of microorganisms from wine; effect of pesticide application to fruits on wine fermentation)• Include important, relevant information ( eg source and number of samples; how many times experiment was repeated; how many times each analyses repeated; how many people in taste panel) Must convince reviewer / reader that your data and conclusions are valid and reproducible
  8. 8. Presentation Results• Sub-sections, sub-headings• Explain what you have done and found; state conclusion in context of experimental purpose.• Package data into clearly structured tables and figures, with precise meaningful titles; less than 8 figures and tables total; explain data to reader.• Justification for figures is important ( frequent reviewer comment—figure not essential, delete and state data and conclusion as text)
  9. 9. Presentation Discussion• Link your conclusions to objective given in Introduction• Relate findings to previous literature, emphasizing novelty of your findings and how they advance knowledge• Discuss any limitations of your experimental plan and findings ; propose future research• Avoid repeating results; avoid excessive reference to literature ( not a survey); ( frequent comment by reviewers!!)• Concluding/ summarizing paragraph• Keep a sharp focus to the main purpose of your research
  10. 10. Some general observations• Many papers do not make it through the first gate—publisher administrator-- and are returned to author for fixing as they do not conform to journal instructions.• Many papers ( more than 50%??) do not make it past the first screening by the Chief Editor for assignment to editors and peer review. Why?? They do not contain new information; they do not tell a clear, concise interesting story ( ie poor presentation); scientific plan/ methods are weak; interpretation of experimental data is faulty.
  11. 11. General observations• Editors decide to reject the paper directly without sending it out for peer review. Why?? Same reasons as given for Chief Editor. It is a demanding task to get good reviewers that take the time to provide good constructive criticism. Reviewers do not like to get sub-standard papers that waste their time, so the editor functions as an extra filter, at this stage.• Editors may directly reject as much as 50% of papers- ie. they are not sent out for review.
  12. 12. The key to success• Follow instructions• Clear, focused background and justification for research, followed by precise objectives that provide new scientific information and advance the field• Simple clear language/writing that is logically organized and is concise and focused to the main points; precise sub-headings, table/figure titles• Good scientific methods and experimental plan, accurate, clear explanation and interpretation of data; adequate reproducibility. TELL A NICE CLEAR INTERESTING STORY!!!