Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Making editors happy


Published on

Things to think about when writing for publication including tips to make editors happy

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Making editors happy

  1. 1. Enhancing publication potential or How to make editors very happy people Carol Haigh Clinical Editor: Journal of Clinical Nursing
  2. 2. Who should I submit to? <ul><li>Depends on why you are submitting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wide range of publications and topics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cohesive theme and related papers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online or hard copy journal? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do you want/need to think about ‘author pays’ model </li></ul><ul><li>Plan on getting rejected by the best before your move onto ‘the rest’ </li></ul><ul><li>Are impact factors important? </li></ul><ul><li>(What?) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Impact factors (I.F) <ul><li>Devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, now part of Thomson, a large worldwide US-based publisher. Published on the Web of Knowledge site </li></ul><ul><li>There are other companies now that also do this but Thomson is still the market leader </li></ul>
  4. 4. Things to think about when looking for a publication platform and I.F <ul><li>New journals, that are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an Impact Factor after the completion of two years' indexing </li></ul><ul><li>Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not have an Impact Factor published until three complete data-years are known </li></ul>
  5. 5. I.F - Pros <ul><li>Web of Knowledge indexes 9000 science and social science journals from 60 countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Results are widely (though not freely) available. </li></ul><ul><li>It is an objective measure. </li></ul><ul><li>In practice, the alternative measure of quality is &quot;prestige.&quot; This is rating by reputation, which is very slow to change, and cannot be quantified or objectively used. It merely demonstrates popularity. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>JCN = 1.301 JAN = 1.442 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NET = 0.573 Nature = 28.751 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. I.F Cons <ul><li>The number of citations to papers in a particular journal does not really directly measure the true quality of a journal, much less the scientific merit of the papers within it </li></ul><ul><li>Several methods, not necessarily with nefarious intent, exist for a journal to cite articles in the same journal which will increase the journal's impact factor for example an editor of a journal may encourage authors to cite articles from that journal in the papers they submit. </li></ul><ul><li>But………………….. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>If you are publishing because… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You want an academic post </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want to influence the thinkers in your field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want a PhD by published work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You want to enhance your ‘academic’ credibility’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then I.F might be important to you </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Title & Key Words <ul><li>Final suggested title –clear, concise, informative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Title is important to attract readers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some publishers choose the final title </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Catchy and “cute” titles are amusing and easily remembered, but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>They are generally not informative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They are difficult to code for search, present retrieval problems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intelligent key words will help to find a reviewer who will understand your work </li></ul>
  9. 9. Don’t send…… <ul><ul><li>a descriptive paper to a journal that only publishes “hard data” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>don’t send a 25 page paper if 10 is the limit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>don’t send 10,000 words if the limit is 3,500 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a paper that is not in the style of the journal (giveaway that the journal was your 2nd choice) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A paper that was clearly an assignment for a university course </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Before submission… <ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read, </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read, </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul><ul><li>Proof read </li></ul>
  11. 11. After submission <ul><li>E-mail of acknowledgement </li></ul><ul><li>Article sent to blinded peer reviewers </li></ul><ul><li>You wait </li></ul><ul><li>Editor makes a decision guided by but not directed by reviewers comments </li></ul><ul><li>Decision letter from editor (with reviewers comments) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Decisions <ul><li>Accept (V. rare) minor revision, major revision, reject & resubmit, reject </li></ul><ul><li>Although it’s hard don’t take rejection personally. </li></ul><ul><li>If you are asked for multiple revisions decide how much work you are prepare to do </li></ul>
  13. 13. Then…. <ul><li>Revised paper resubmitted (to deadline = happy editor) </li></ul><ul><li>Letter of acceptance of further revision </li></ul><ul><li>Wait for proofs to check </li></ul><ul><li>Send proofs back (to deadline = happy editor) </li></ul><ul><li>Online early so it counts as a publication from that point </li></ul><ul><li>In print (there may be a bit of a delay) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Things that make editors irritable 1-5 <ul><li>Authors who plainly haven’t read the journal info. </li></ul><ul><li>Papers from English authors that are full of spelling errors </li></ul><ul><li>Authors (and reviewers) who do not meet re-sub deadlines </li></ul><ul><li>Papers with nothing new to add </li></ul><ul><li>Papers from conferences or courses submitted in original format </li></ul>
  15. 15. Things that make editors irritable 6-11 <ul><li>Redundant or duplicate publications </li></ul><ul><li>Inappropriate papers </li></ul><ul><li>Inappropriate style </li></ul><ul><li>Papers that are too country specific </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Salami slicing’ </li></ul><ul><li>Plagiarism ( even of yourself) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Things that make editors happy 1-5 <ul><li>Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>International Perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Robust reporting </li></ul><ul><li>Cutting edge or something very different </li></ul><ul><li>Good presentation </li></ul>
  17. 17. Things that make editors happy 6-11 <ul><li>Papers that have breadth </li></ul><ul><li>Intelligent use of key words </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate style and language </li></ul><ul><li>Papers that have clearly been read over before submission </li></ul><ul><li>Clarity of information about ethics, conflict of interest etc </li></ul><ul><li>Author lists that are reasonable, or at least feasible </li></ul>
  18. 18. Get insight in to how the process works <ul><li>Become a reviewer for your journal of choice (Doesn’t necessarily guarantee publication of your work tho’) </li></ul><ul><li>Go to ‘meet the editors’ sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Submit editorials </li></ul>
  19. 19. Other things that will help…. <ul><li>If you are reporting numbers make sure the numbers add up </li></ul><ul><li>If you are reporting qualitative data make sure your analytical techniques are clear </li></ul><ul><li>If you needed ethical approval make sure you confirm you got it </li></ul><ul><li>Make sure your participants are protected at all times </li></ul>
  20. 20. Thank you for your attention Deadline 5 p.m