First I would like to thank Marc Stahl for arranging the room and working behind the scenes to make you all aware of this workshop.A bit of background about me: Katie EvePublisher of Geochemistry & Geophysics journals, including International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, new journal affiliated with Global Risk Forum, organising society of IDRC conference.Have worked at Elsevier just over 2 years, previously worked at Taylor & Francis on Chemistry journals.Before that I did my Masters in Biochemistry so I have experience in the Physical and Life Sciences.The aim of today is to give you some breif background on scholarly publishing, the publishing cycle and what publisher do.I will then go onto talk about the process of publishing your research in academic journals: from deciding whether you are ready to publish, to choosing a journal for submission, to structuring your paper, to considering ethics.
Including data sets, models, algorithms and programs which are critical to fully understand research, but often difficult to obtain and access.
Publishers are rethinking article presentation. For instance, Elsevier have developed the Article of the Future, an ongoing project to optimise online scientific communication and article presentation. The most striking change is to the presentation, moving to a 3 pane view across all journals with HTML: The left pane is for browsing & navigation, allowing the reader to quickly find the relevant sections in the article. Also images are available here, since we’ve learned that for many researchers these are a key decision-making factor to determine if an article is of interest or not. The middle pane is geared for an optimal “full-text article” reading experience. We’ve tried to incorporate typographical lessons from the PDF such as column width and heading size for an optimal reading experience. The right pane collects additional content and tools that are available for the article. This includes author information, a reference list, and an image browser – but also new types of content and context which are domain specific.
One example of a domain specific enhancement is InteractiveGoogle Maps. Researchers in Earth Science often have a collection of research data that is organized geospatially, with data points connected to coordinates on Earth. Authors using GIS systems can export data as KML files, and if this is submitted as a supplementary file, Elsevier is able to turn the data into an interactive map which appears within the online article as an embedded application beneath the abstract. Readers can explore the map in the article or download the KML file. We are currently offering this to over 80 journals from earth sciences, to geography, to archaeology and even to health/medical sciences e.g. for pandemic mapping.
We also mentioned the increasing importance of data, and Elsevier has developed several solutions to linking with data repositories. A neat example is the PANGAEA linking application that is shown here The application queries the PANGAEA database for data records in their system that are associated with the article that is being displayed on ScienceDirect. If there are relevant data records which have been deposited at PANGAEA by the author, they will be shown on an interactive map simultaneously fed to the article page from another information resource on the internet. The reader can access a description of the data record by clicking on the points of the map, but also follow a link to PANGAEA to get to the actual data.
These numbers show the landscape including all publishers and are intended to give you a broad overview of the sheer scale of publishing. Just to pick out 2 facts, relevant to this workshop particularly:1. With approx 50% rejected (only 1 in 2 of submitted articles are eventually published) there is a high risk of your paper being rejected2. With 1.5 mill articles published p.a. you have to do a LOT to get your article noticed once it has been published
So from looking at the broad publishing landscape and process, I want to bring this discussion back to all of you sitting here
This is a tool called SciVal Spotlight which allows one to pinpoint the strengths by subject of a particular country or institution.Each circle represents a competency (or strength).Size of circle is related to the amount of content.Location shows the subject area and how interdisciplinary the research is.
So now getting into the main part of the presentation. Just before we get started on this, to give me an idea of what stage you are all at, and to check you are still awake, can I have a show of hands:How many of you have already had a paper published?How many of you are in the process of preparing a paper?...
I’d like to start with the initial considerations that need to be made even before beginning to write your manuscript...First of all, you need to ask yourself the question: Are you really ready to publish? You should consider publishing if you have information that advances understanding in a specific research field.This could take the form of:1. Presenting new, original results or methods2. Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results3. Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or fieldIf the answer to this question is yes, a strong manuscript is what is needed next.
Your manuscript has a lot of hurdles to cross before it will be accepted; as we saw, only 1 in 2 are accepted for publication. Hence a strong manuscript is VERY important.A poorly prepared manuscript will frustrate editors and reviewers and is more likely to fall at the first hurdle as it can diminish good research.So, what is a strong manuscript?The scientific message must be clear, useful, and excitingThe author’s messages must be presented and constructed in a logical manner. The reader should arrive at the same conclusions as the author. The format chosen should best showcase your material.Readers, reviewers, and editors should be able to easily grasp the scientific significance of the research.
A critical part of putting your manuscript together is deciding on the paper type to best suit your research. There are 4 main paper types, and each suit different purposes:Conference papersFull ArticlesLettersReviewsAnd I’ll briefly summarise each of these in the coming slides.Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress research findingsFairly short, typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 referencesTypically edited by conference/session organiser(s)Good way to start a scientific research career
Standard for disseminating completed research findingsTypically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 referencesGood way to build a scientific research career
Quick and early communications of significant, original advancesMuch shorter than full articlesUsually follow up with a full length paper later
Critical synthesis of a specific research topicTypically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 referencesTypically solicited by journal editorsGood way to consolidate a scientific research career
One thing to be aware of is the citation profile of each paper type:Reviews typically receive more citations than the other paper types, but take longer to reach their peak of citationsNotes are typically cited immediately, but have a short citation lifetimeArticles are somewhere inbetween
How to decide which:Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
So, you’ve decided that you are ready to publish, and the form your paper will take, the next step is to consider which journal to submit to.It goes without saying that, if you have co-authors and collaborators, this is a decision you should discuss and take together.References are always a good starting point and can give a pool of candidate journals.Looking at recent publications in each journal will show you the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, and so on.One tip I would give is to never submit work to a journal that you do not read yourself. If you do, the chances are your work will be rejected because you will not have the necessary ‘feel’ about what is appropriate. You won’t have the necessary sense of the ‘culture’ of the journal and editors.You then need to think about journal specifics: some examples are given on the slide, but in addition consider:Is this a prestigious and reputable journal? Are the editors well-respected in the field? Is there international coverage and distribution of this journal?Finally,ONLY SUBMIT TO ONE JOURNAL. Simultaneous submission to more than one journal is considered unethical. Most journals have conditions that require that manuscripts submitted to them have not been simultaneously submitted elsewhere.
Once you have selected a journal, you are then ready to begin thinking about getting down to writing your manuscript.
Your ultimate resource for this is the journal “Guide for Authors”. This contains specific details for the preparation of your manuscript; closely reading and taking note of the specifics is critical to getting your paper into the right form for submission. A guide for authors will contain details for the following:Types of papersEditorial team and contact infoGraphic considerationsLanguage acceptedPaper lengthDetails on keywords, color illustrations, proofs, offprints, etc.And many more specifics. Of course, some of these elements are also important to know at the point of deciding which journal to submit to.Apply these to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc ). Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts so if the paper fails to meet the journal specifications, at best it will be sent straight back for correction, and at worst it will be rejected outright. It’s therefore much better to invest the time upfront and make a good impression.
Title – what is your paper aboutThere are certain characteristics of strong titles:Attract the reader’s attentionBe specific and directly reflect the content of your manuscriptKeep it informative but conciseAvoid technical jargon and abbreviations; use formal languageA good title should contain the fewest possible words that adequately describe the content of a paper.Also advisable to discuss the title with your co-author.
Actual examples of titles that have been revised. Blue titles are the original. Green titles are the revised. Remarks and comments are on the right.Effective titlesIdentify the main issue of the paperBegin with the subject of the paperAre accurate, unambiguous, specific, and completeAre as short as possibleCatchyDo not contain rarely-used abbreviations
Abstract – concisely explains what you did and the key findingsThe abstract should just be one paragraph and should summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions.The abstract acts as an advertisement for you article since it is freely viewable via search and indexing services [PubMed, Medline, Embase, SciVerse Scopus, ....]. You want to make it as catchy and impactful as possible.An abstract written clearly will strongly encourage the reader to read the rest of your paper. Noone wants to read something if it’s going to be difficult of laborious to do so. Think of the abstract as the blurb for a novel.An example of an abstract is given here and is shown with the two distinct sections that are most important. The two “whats” are essential. Make it interesting, and easy to understand without reading the whole article (avoid using jargon and uncommon abbreviations if possible)Many authors write the abstract last so that it accurately reflects the finalcontent of the paper.
Illustrations, including figures and tables, are an important part of any results section and are the most efficient way to present the results. Your data are the “driving force of the paper”. Therefore, your illustrations are critical!Illustrations should be used for ESSENTIAL data only. The legend of a figure should be brief. And it should contain sufficient explanatory details to make the figure understood easily without referring to the text. Graphs are often used for comparison of experimental results againsteachother, with those of previous works, or with calculated/theoretical values. Graphs should be uncrowded; 3 or 4 data sets per figure; well-selected scales; appropriate axis label size; symbols clear to see and data sets easy to discriminate. B. Generally, tables give the actual experimental results. Be succinct and make them as easy to read as possible.C. Each photograph must have a scale marker on one corner and the resolution should be clear. Use color ONLYwhen necessary. If different line styles can clarify the meaning, never use colors or other thrilling effects.
Scientific language is a necessary and important consideration since it is one of the easiest ways for an editor or reviewer to not grasp the message of your work. The findings reported in a paper may be cutting edge, but poor language quality –including errors in grammar, spelling or language usage– could delay publication or could lead to outright rejection of the paper, preventing the research from getting the recognition it deserves.
Do Publishers Help Correct Language? Yes and noThere is often confusion on whose responsibility it is to ensure that the proper language it used in a scientific paper. It is the author’s responsibility, and in their own best interest, to make sure his/her paper is in its best possible form when submitted for publication - that includes the quality of the written English. However:- Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals . Please check your publishers’ author website for more information. - Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review.
Around 20% of all submissions are rejected without review on grounds of scope, quality or technical issues.
I often get asked the question: how long does the review process take. Unfortunately there is no easy answer as the review process can vary depending on the journal and field. According to a recent report put out by the Publishers Research Consortium, editors reported average submission-to-acceptance times of 130 days (18 weeks), split roughly equally between the initial peer review stage to first decision, and subsequent review stages. Nearly three quarters (72%) reported times of 6 months or below. Time were shortest in medical journals and nursing journals, and longest in humanities and social sciences journals.
This is an example of a reviewer checklist covering a number of elements such as:ScopeBroadness/specificityLengthLanguageWriting and presentation styleClarityNoveltySignificance/importanceEthicsLogic i.e. Do all “methods” have a “results”? Have all “results” been described in the “Methods”? Are all “conclusions” based on “results”?
Essentially novelty and technical quality. So really, just the same as the editor.
Acceptance with no changes – very rare2 extremes of revision:Minor revisionBasically, the manuscript is worth publishingBUT some elements in the manuscript need workNote, “Minor revision” does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision! Don’t be complacent!Major revisionThe manuscript may finally be published in the journalFundamental shortcomings must be addressed before acceptanceUsually involves (significant) textual modifications and/or additional experiments Rejection - the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication
I have yet to meet anyone how whose manuscript had never been rejected, including Nobel prize winners, editors. The important thing is to learn and benefit from the experience.
Elsevier Author Workshop – How to write a scientific paper… and get it published
How to Get Publishedin a Research JournalKatherine EvePublisher, Geochemistry & Geophysics Journals, Elsevier LimitedIDRC 2012 26th August 2012
Outline• Publishing History• Publishing Landscape and Cycle• Publishing Cycle• Your Expertise• Initial Considerations • Are you ready to publish? • What is a strong manuscript? • Paper types • Choosing the right journal
• How to write a good manuscript • Preparations before starting • Constructing your article • Language • Submission• The review process • Demystifying the „black hole‟ • Types of review • What do reviewers look for?• Ethical issues • What is unethical behaviour? • Scientific misconduct • Publishing misconduct • Consequences
The Publisher’s Role TodayRegistration Certification Dissemination Preservation Use Innovation & Technology Publishers coordinate the exchange of ideas between authors, editors, reviewers, and the wider STM audience of researchers, scientists, health professionals, students, and patients. 5
Change in Scholarly Communication,... From “print science” to “electronic science”• Research output nowadays is more than text and images. Also data sets, computer code, multimedia files etc.
...Dramatic Growth in Output... 25000 ~3% per annum “This is truly the decade of the journal and one should seek to limit their 20000 number rather than to increaseActive, Peer-Reviewed Journals them, since there can be too many periodicals.” 15000 Neues medicinisches Wochenblatt fur Aerzte (1789) 10000 5000 0 <1900 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s >2000 Decade • Extent of output means readers need assistance with analysing and interpreting research
...and increasing importance of data... Publishing Research Consortium, 2010 Researchers, N = 3824 Important, but hard to access
...means changes in the way we publish• Content: Need to enhance the online article so that it allows researchers to optimally communicate scientific research in all its (digital) breadth• Context: Need to connect the online article to trustworthy scientific resources to present valuable additional information• Presentation: Need to optimise browsing and reading experience pres. content context• Introducing Elsevier‟s Article of the Future
The Article of the Future? Feedback “New presentation format and extra features make it faster / easier to obtain understanding” “Article outline in the left pane helps to easily navigate within an article” “Additional content/features in the right pane help when reading the article” (Survey with 600+ participants)Left pane: efficient Center pane: Full-textnavigation Right pane: collects domain- view, designed for optimal& browsing specific tools and content. online reading experience Shown here: Fossil Taxa from PaleoDB
Interactive Maps e.g. GoogleMapsHow does it work?1. Authors store geospatial data as a .KML file (using regular GIS tools)2. Authors upload .KML files as supplementary material through EES (may also be at revision stage)3. Elsevier turns this into an Interactive Map and includes this in the online article4. Readers can explore map from the article, or download KML file
Data-Linking Applications e.g. PANGAEA How does it work? 1. Authors (or data managers for large projects) deposit data at PANGAEA and provide publication info 2. Online article reader sees an interactive application that visualizes data on the map 3. Application contains link to full data record at PANGAEA
• 2,000 publishers• 20,000 journals• 3M articles submitted from 5.5 M researchers• 1.5M articles published• 30M readers• 2 billion digital article downloads• 30M article citations Source: Knowledge Networks and Nations: Royal Society 2011 http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/In fluencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks- nations.pdf
The Journal Publishing Cycle• Organise editorial boards Solicit and• Launch new specialist manage journals submissions Archive and Manage peer promote use review Publish and Edit and disseminate prepare Production 15
Submission and Assessment• Organise editorial boards Solicit and• Launch new specialist manage journals submissions Archive and Manage peer promote use review Publish and Edit and disseminate prepare Production 16
Editing, Preparation and Production• Organise editorial boards Solicit and• Launch new specialist manage journals submissions Archive and Manage peer promote use review Publish and Edit and disseminate prepare Production 18
Editing, Preparation and Production Copy editing, Logo, paginatioAuthor Submits Manuscript Author Proofing, n, brandingManuscript Accepted Preparation for publishing 2. Accepted 4. Published 1. Preprint Author 3. Document Journal Article Manuscript Electronic Warehouse Published as Published as Print Copy HTML or PDF • Publishers can create an Electronic Warehouse and other electronic production tools to speed up production times • These tools require heavy investments, but they can process hundreds of thousands of articles and maintain digitized backfiles 19
Publication and Dissemination• Organise editorial boards Solicit and• Launch new specialist manage journals submissions Archive and Manage peer promote use review Publish and Edit and disseminate prepare Production 20
From Print to Electronic Traditional Print Journals Electronic JournalPlatforms improve online dissemination and access, for example 21
Universal Access Open Access Journals Open Access Articles Author pays Option to pay for OA at point of acceptance Open Archives Delayed access to recent archives after embargo of 6-48 months Retained Author Rights Supporting and FacilitatingPermitted posting of preprint and accepted Posting in Repositoriesauthor manuscript (AAM) for personal use, Example: Elsevier deposits NIH institutional use, and permitted scholarly funded research in PMC on author posting behalf
Global Reach – Information Philanthropy Free or very low cost access to 1000s of peer-reviewed journals from current day back to 1995to public institutions in over 100 developing countries 23
Archiving and Promoting Article Use• Organise editorial boards Solicit and• Launch new specialist manage journals submissions Archive and Manage peer promote use review Publish and Edit and disseminate prepare Production 24
3rd Party Archiving In addition to traditional print archives, publishers are partnering to create multiple distributed electronic archives with 3rd parties for posterityElsevier has partnered with the …and is developing similar National Library of the arrangements with other Netherlands… organizations 1st official archive 2nd official archive 2-year Pilot Study 25
Promoting Use by New Audiences• Abstract & Index Databases• Workflow & Research Tools• Scientific Search Engines• Patient Use (Patient Research)• Point of Care Decision Making 26
Are you ready to publish?You should consider publishing if you have informationthat advances understanding in a specific research fieldThis could be in the form of:• Presenting new, original results or methods• Rationalizing, refining, or reinterpreting published results• Reviewing or summarizing a particular subject or field If you are ready to publish, a strong manuscript is what is needed next
What is a strong manuscript?• Has a clear, useful, and exciting message• Presented and constructed in a logical manner• Reviewers and editors can grasp the significance easily Editors and reviewers are all busy people – make things easy to save their time
Paper types1. Conference papers2. Full articles / Original articles3. Letters / Rapid Communications/ Short communications4. Review papers / perspectives
1. Conference Papers• Excellent for disseminating early or in-progress research findings• Typically 5-10 pages, 3 figures, 15 references• Typically edited by conference/session organiser(s)• Good way to start a scientific research career
2. Full articles• Standard for disseminating completed research findings• Typically 8-10 pages, 5 figures, 25 references• Good way to build a scientific research career
3. Letters• Quick and early communications of significant, original advances• Much shorter than full articles• Usually follow up with a full length paper later
4. Review papers/perspectives• Critical synthesis of a specific research topic• Typically 10+ pages, 5+ figures, 80 references• Typically solicited by journal editors• Good way to consolidate a scientific research career
Which paper type?Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Would a short communication/letter be better?Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type. Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
Choosing the right journal• Discuss with your co-author, supervisor and collaborators.• Look at your references to narrow down your choices.• Review recent publications in each candidate journal. Find out the hot topics, the accepted types of articles, etc.• Find out journal specifics: Is the journal peer-reviewed? Who is this journal‟s audience? What is the average time to print? What is the journal‟s Impact Factor?• Decide on one journal. DO NOT submit to multiple journals• Consider journals‟ Guides/Instructions for Authors
Preparations before you start– Read the Guide for Authors • You can find the Guide for Authors on the journal homepage on Elsevier.com • Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript, even in the first draft (text layout, nomenclature, figures & tables, references etc.). In the end it will save you time, and also the editor‟s. • Editors (and reviewers) do not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscripts.
Constructing your article- General structure of a research article Make them easy for • Title The progression andthe thematic indexing of searching! • Abstract scope of a paper: (informative, attractive, • Keywords effective) general specific general • Main text (IMRAD) Journal space is not – Introduction However, we often write in the unlimited. – Methods following order: as Make your article – Results – Figuresconcise as possible. and tables – And – Discussions– Methods, Results and Discussion • Conclusions – Conclusions and Introduction • Acknowledgements – Abstract and title • References • Supplementary Data
- Title• Attract the reader‟s attention• Be specific• Keep it informative and concise• Avoid jargon and abbreviations
- Title – some examplesOriginal Title Revised RemarksPreliminary Effect of Zn on Long title distracts readers.observations on the anticorrosion of zinc Remove all redundancies such aseffect of Zn element plating layer “observations on”, “the nature of”, etc.on anticorrosion ofzinc plating layerAction of antibiotics Inhibition of growth Titles should be specific.on bacteria of mycobacterium Think to yourself: “How will I search for this tuberculosis by piece of information?” when you design the streptomycin title.
- Abstract A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered... – Brief - one paragraphWe tackle the general linear instantaneous model (possiblyunderdetermined and noisy) where we model the source prior with aStudent t distribution. The conjugate-exponential characterisation of the t – Advertisement of your article (freely What hasdistribution as an infinite mixture of scaled Gaussians enables us to doefficient inference. We study two well-known inference methods, Gibbs available through A&I)sampler and variational Bayes for Bayesian source separation. We derive been doneboth techniques as local message passing algorithms to highlight their – Easy to understand (without reading the wholealgorithmic similarities and to contrast their different convergencecharacteristics and computational requirements.Our simulation results suggest that typical posterior distributions in source article)separation have multiple local maxima. Therefore we propose a hybrid What are theapproach where we explore the state space with a Gibbs sampler and – Must be accurate and specific! main findingsthen switch to a deterministic algorithm. This approach seems to be ableto combine the speed of the variational approach with the robustness ofthe Gibbs sampler.
- KeywordsUsed by indexing and abstracting services• Labels/tags• Use only established abbreviations (e.g. DNA)• Check the „Guide for Authors‟Article Title Keywords“Silo music and silo quake: granular Silo music, Silo quake, stick-slipflow-induced vibration” flow, resonance, creep, granular discharge“An experimental study on evacuated Solar collector; Supercritical CO2;tube solar collector using supercritical Solar energy; Solar thermalCO2” utilization
The same things?• Title• Abstract• Keywords• Main text (IMRAD) – Introduction – Methods – Results – And – Discussions• Conclusion• Acknowledgement• References• Supporting Materials
- Results – what have you found?• Tell a clear and easy-to-understand story.• Include: – Main findings – Unexpected findings – Results of the statistical analysis
- Results – graphs, figures and tables• Captions and legends must be detailed enough to make figures and tables self-explanatory• No duplication of results described in text or other illustrations• Use colour ONLY when necessary e.g. if different line styles can clarify the meaning, use this instead of colour. Figure should be visible and distinguishable when printed out in black & white.• Do NOT ‘selectively adjust’ any image to enhance visualization of results.
- AcknowledgementsEnsures those who helped in the research are recognisedInclude individuals who have assisted with your study, including:• Advisors• Financial supporters• Proofreaders• Typists• Suppliers who may have given materials
Language - Why is language important? Save your editor and reviewers the trouble of guessing what you meanComplaint from an editor:“[This] paper fell well below my threshold. I refuse to spend timetrying to understand what the author is trying to say. Besides, Ireally want to send a message that they cant submit garbage to usand expect us to fix it. My rule of thumb is that if there are morethan 6 grammatical errors in the abstract, then I dont waste mytime carefully reading the rest.”
- Do publishers correct language?• No. It is the author‟s responsibility to make sure his paper is in its best possible form when submitted for publication• However: – Publishers often provide resources for authors who are less familiar with the conventions of international journals. Please check your publishers‟ author website for more information. – Some publishers may perform technical screening prior to peer review. – Visit http://webshop.elsevier.com for translation and language editing services.
Submission- Final checks• Revise before submission• Vet the manuscript as thoroughly as possible before submission• Ask colleagues and supervisors to review your manuscript
- Covering letter Your chance to speak to the editor directly from all Final approval authors• Submitted along with your manuscript• Mention what would make your manuscript special to the journal Explanation of importance• Note special requirements of research (reviewers, conflicts of interest)Suggested reviewers
Demystifying the ‘black hole’ Author Editor Reviewer START Basic requirements met? Submit a [Yes] paper Assign reviewers Review and give [No] recommendation Collect reviewers’ recommendations [Reject] Make a REJECT decision Revise the [Revision required] paper [Accept]Michael Derntl. Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing.ACCEPT 63http://www.pri.univie.ac.at/~derntl/papers/meth-se.pdf
Desk Rejection (rejection without external review)The Editor-in-chief evaluates all submissions, and determines whether they go into thereview process or are rejected by the editorSome journal specific policy e.g. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta “Rule of Two”Criteria – Out of scope – Too preliminary – Lack of Novelty – Inadequate English language – Prior publication of (part of) the data – Ethical issues e.g. submitted elsewhere – And more...
Review ProcessRegular articles are initially reviewed by at least two reviewersA third reviewer may be used in case of disagreements between reviewersWhen invited, the reviewer receives the Abstract of the manuscriptThe editor generally requests that the article be reviewed within reasonable time (varies per field), limited extensions sometimes acceptableIf a report has not been received in good time, the Editorial office contacts the reviewerArticles are generally revised until the reviewers agree on either acceptanceor rejection, or until the editor decides that the reviewer comments have beenaddressed satisfactorilyThe reviewers‟ reports help the Editors to reach a decisionThe reviewer recommends…the editor decides
Review PolicyReviewers do not communicate directly As author with authors As editor As reviewerAll manuscripts and supplementary material must be As reader treated confidentially by editors and reviewersThe aim is to have a “first decision” to the authors as fast as possible after submission of the manuscriptMeeting these schedule objectives requires a significant effort on the part of the Editorial staff, As a researcher, Editor and Reviewers you wear many hats!If reviewers treat authors as they themselves would like to be treated as authors, then these objectives can be met
What is the reviewer looking for? Yes NoIs the article within the scope of the journal?Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist journal?Can the article be condensed?• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables TextIs the language acceptable?Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further clarification?• If so, where? ________________On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz• Experimental design• Evaluation of data• Discussion of results• Clarity of presentationThe article should beAccepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensationReconsidered after major revision RejectedConfidential comments to the editor: [free text]
What is the reviewer looking for? Yes NoIs the article within the scope of the journal?Would the article be more appropriately published in a specialist journal?Can the article be condensed? “ Novelty”• If so, where: Figures Figure legends Tables TextIs the language acceptable?Are there portions of the manuscripts which require further clarification?• If so, where? ________________On a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (outstanding), how do you rate Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Outstanding• Novelty, New knowledge in xyz• Experimental design “ Technical” Quality• Evaluation of data• Discussion of results• Clarity of presentationThe article should beAccepted without change Accepted after minor revision Accepted after condensationReconsidered after major revision RejectedConfidential comments to the editor: [free text]
Decision possibilities• Accept without change (very rare!)• Minor revision (means you will have to change a few things)• Moderate revision (means you will have to rewrite a few things, possibly sections, figures, provide more data, etc)• Major revision (means you will have to address some fundamental shortcomings – possibly doing additional research and certainly rewriting big sections)• Rejection (means the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication in that journal)
Revision: a great opportunity• Value the opportunity to discuss your work directly with other scientists in your community to improve your manuscript• Prepare a detailed letter of response – Cut and paste each comment by the reviewer – State specifically the changes (if any) you have made to the manuscript (identify the page and line number) – Provide a scientific response to any comment you accept – Offer a convincing, solid and polite rebuttal to any point on which you think the reviewer is wrong• Write in a such way that your responses can be forwarded by the editor to the reviewer
Rejection: not the end of the world•You are not alone – everyone has papers rejectedso do not take it personally•Try to understand why the paper was rejected•You have received the editors and reviewers‟ time – benefit fromthe advice and pointers they have given you•Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate tosubmit the paper elsewhere. If so: begin as if you are going to write a new article read the Guide for Authors of the new journal address previous reviewer comments
Types of review SUBMIT TO A JOURNAL REVIEW ON A JOURNAL Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Single Blind Double Blind Open Peer Review (Reviewer known to author only) Open Peer Review (Reviewer name next to article) Open Peer Review(Reviewer report posted but NO name) Open Peer Review(Reviewer‟s name and report posted) Post-publication assessment (Peer reviewed before publication) Post-publication assessment (No peer review before publication)
What is unethical behaviour?Unethical behaviour can earn rejection and even a ban frompublishing in some journals. Unethical behaviour includes:• Scientific misconduct • Falsification/fabrication of results• Publishing misconduct – Plagiarism – Different forms / severities – The paper must be original to the authors – Duplicate/multiple submission – Redundant publication – Failure to acknowledge prior research and researchers – Inappropriate identification of all co-authors – Conflict of interest
Scientific misconduct- an example Rotated 180o Rotated Zoomed out 180o ?!
- Fabrication and falsification • Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording or reporting them • Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or changing/omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record
Publishing misconduct- Plagiarism“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts” Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999“Presenting the data or interpretations of others without crediting them, and thereby gaining for yourself the rewards earned by others, is theft, and it eliminates the motivation of working scientists to generate new data and interpretations” Bruce Railsback, Professor, Department of Geology, University of Georgia 77
- Multiple/Duplicate submission• Two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, or conclusions• An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.• Nuances: – Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of conferences does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission. – Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
- Authorship General principles for who is listed first • First Author Conducts and/or supervises the data generation and analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results Puts paper together and submits the paper to journal • Corresponding author Makes intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contributes to data interpretation Reviews each paper draft Must be able to present the results, defend the implications and discuss study limitations Avoid • Ghost Authorship – leaving out authors who should be included • Gift Authorship – including authors who did not contribute significantly
- Conflicts of interest• Conflicts of interest can take many forms: – Direct financial e.g. employment, stock ownership, grants, patents – Indirect financial e.g. onoraria, consultancies, mutual fund ownership, expert testimony – Career & intellectual e.g. promotion, direct rival – Institutional – Personal belief• The proper way to handle potential conflicts of interest is through transparency and disclosure• At the journal level, this means disclosure of the potential conflict in your cover letter to the journal editor
ConsequencesThe article of which the authors committed plagiarism: it won’t be removed from ScienceDirect.Everybody who downloads it will see the reason of retraction… 81
Elsevier Listens…Every journal, platform and product at Elsevier is co-developed with ongoing community input. In 2011 we surveyed or consulted with thousands of individuals: Purchaser/Customer Innovation Explorers: Service Satisfaction Researchers & Librarians Product Feedback Librarian Surveys Advisory Board … so please give your feedback on this session!