3. • The Publishing House of Elzevirwas first established in 1580 by
Lowys(Louis) Elzevirat the University of Leiden, Holland.
• Keeping to the tradition of publishing established by Lowys
Elzevir, Jacobus George Robbers established the modern Elsevier
Company in 1880.
• Among those authors who published with Elsevier are, Galileo,
Erasmus, Descartes, Alexander Fleming, Julius Verne.
since 1580
Empowering KnowledgeTM
6. A global information analytics company
specializing in science andhealth.
We help institutions and
professionals progress science,
advance healthcare and improve
performance.
Combine content with technology, supported by operational
efficiency, to turn information into actionable knowledge.
We help you solve your
challenges, for the
benefit of humanity
Why we do it
Who we are
What we do
A unique combination
Empowering KnowledgeTM
7. Our mission:
Lead the way in science, technology and health
Our solutions:
Research & Development, Clinical, Research platforms,
Research intelligence, Education
and many others
8. Topic
1. Best Practices in Writing Your Research Paper
2. Choosing the Right Journal for Your Research Paper
3. Questions and Answers
10. 10
Best Practices in Writing
Questions to answer before you write
Think about WHY you want to publish your work.
1. Have you done something new?
2. Is there anything challenging in your work?
3. Is the work related directly to a current topic of high interest?
4. Have you provided solutions to some difficult problems?
If you can answer “yes” to some or all these questions, then
start preparations for your manuscript
11. 11
Best Practices in Writing
Target after you finished your manuscript
Publish in high quality journal. Why?
Gain credibility
Visibility
Speaking invitations
Awards
Readership
Citations
Collaborations
Funding
Boost credibility of institution
Motivation for peers
Impact to students
Impact on the society
For your career For your future research For wider community
12. 12
Best Practices in Writing
Article Structure
Important points to remember:
• Some journals might have slightly
different article structure. Please take this
into consideration.
• Depending on your subject areas, there
could be modifications based on common
writing structure in the area.
• Take serious consideration for
supplementary data too. Some editors and
reviewers also take data seriously.
13. 13
Best Practices in Writing
Title
There are certain characteristics of effective titles. They should:
• Attract the reader’s attention
• Contain the fewest possible words
• Be specific and directly reflect the content of your manuscript
• Be informative but concise
• Should not include technical jargon and abbreviations; use formal language
• Delete trivial phrases e.g. “Notes on …”, “A study of…”, “An analysis of…”
Remember:
Editors and reviewers don’t like titles that make no sense or fail to represent the subject matter adequately. And maybe
even more important, you want the appropriate audience to read your paper. If the title isn’t accurate, the right people
may not read it and the community might be unaware of your work. This could even lead to lower citations than the
paper deserves. Do not contain rarely-used abbreviations.
14. 14
Best Practices in Writing
Abstract
• It is freely available in electronic abstracting & indexing services [PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, ....]
• This should be a single paragraph summarising the problem, the method, the results, and the
conclusions.
• The abstract acts as an advertisement for your article since it is freely available via online searching and
indexing. You want to make it as catchy and accurate as possible to have the greatest impact.
• An abstract written clearly will strongly encourage the reader to read the rest of your paper.
15. 15
Best Practices in Writing
Introduction
Where does the field stand?
What problem are you addressing?
Identify the solutions & limitations
Note:
• Be concise in the introduction but give the reader enough
information to understand why the work is important.
Introductions of Reports can be shorter, sometimes only one
paragraph.
• This section shouldn’t be a history lesson, but you do need to
introduce the main scientific publications on which your work is
based.
• Balanced literature, cite a couple of original and important works,
including recent review articles, Editors hate many references
irrelevant to the work, or inappropriate judgments on your own
achievements.
16. 16
Best Practices in Writing
Methods
• The methods section should describe how you studied the problem.
• It is important to be detailed – a knowledgeable reader should be able to reproduce the experiment.
• Any previously published procedures should not be re-written in detail. Those can be noted in the References or described in
the Supporting Materials sections.
• The equipment and materials used in experiments should be identified, along with their sources if there is the chance for
variability of quality of these items.
• If the work is computational or theoretical, code, computational, or analytical methods should be described.
• Experiments on humans or animals must follow ethics standards. Required approval should be specified in:
• the manuscript,
• covering letter, or
• online submission system
• Editors can make their own decisions on ethics
17. 17
Best Practices in Writing
Results
• This is where you describe the important results of your research.
• Illustrations, including figures and tables are the most efficient way to present your results.
• Your data are the “driving force of the paper.”Therefore, your figures and illustrations are critical, and they should
be used for ESSENTIAL data only
• Data of secondary importance should be put in the Supporting or Supplementary Materials section.
• The legend of a figure should be brief, and it should contain sufficient explanatory details to explain the figure
without the need to refer to the text.
• Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together – This will make the results easier to review and read.
Number these sub-sections for the convenience of internal cross-referencing. Decide on a logical order of the data that
tells a clear story.
• Highlight findings that further understanding in the field, or those that differ from previous findings and explain any
unexpected results.
18. 18
Best Practices in Writing
Discussion
• What do the results mean?
• Make sure the discussion corresponds to and complements the results, but do not simply repeat the results here.
• Compare other published results with your own, and DO NOT ignore work in disagreement with yours – confront it
and convince the reader that you are correct or better.
• DO NOT
• Create statements that go beyond what the results can support
• Use non-specific expressions such as “higher temperature”or “at a lower rate”; use quantitative descriptions
instead
• Introduce new terms not already defined or mentioned in your paper
• Speculate based on imagination. You can speculate but needs to be rooted in fact
19. 19
Best Practices in Writing
Conclusion
• The conclusion is used to show how your work advances the field of study. Provide clear justification upon this.
• Suggest future experiments that build on your work and point out any relevant experiments that may already be
underway.
20. 20
Best Practices in Writing
References
• The reference list is where you cite the main scientific publications on which you based your work.
• Do not include too many references, especially if they are only tangentially related to your work.
• Always ensure that you have fully absorbed and understood the material you are referencing. Do not just rely on
reading excerpts or isolated sentences. Know what you’re referencing!
• Avoid excessive self-citations of your own work or from a single region or institute.
• Check the Guide for Authors in journal to ensure the proper format.
21. 21
Best Practices in Writing
Acknowledgement
• Ensures those who helped in the research are recognised
• Include individuals who have assisted with your study, including:
• Advisors
• Financial supporters
• Proof-readers
• Suppliers who may have given materials
22. 22
Best Practices in Writing
Cover Letter
• Never underestimate the importance of a cover letter addressed to the editor or editor-in-chief of the target journal
• Cover letter gives authors an important opportunity to convince them that their research work is worth reviewing
• A good cover letter:
• Outlines the main theme of the paper
• Argues the novelty of the paper
• Justifies the relevance of the manuscript to the target journal
• Avoid pasting portions of abstract in cover letter
24. 24
?
Best Practices in Publishing
• Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since
the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago.
• The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the
first journal to formalize the peer review process under the editorship
of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).
• Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority
of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of
scientific evaluation
Peer Review Process
25. Threat to science: Predatory journals are on the rise
Various studies have indicated
that there is an escalation in
predatory journals.
However, it is near impossible
to determine the extent
of predatory journals since they
appear and disappear continually.
In 2015, a study by Shen and
Bjork of Hanken School of
Economics in Finland found more
than 420,000 articles in predatory
journals published between 2010-
2014. This number was up from
53,000 in 2010.
Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/01/study-finds-huge-increase-articles-published-predatory-journals
26. Consensus definition of ''Predatory journals''
• The definition of predatory journals has
been contentious.
• In 2019 a group of researchers met to define
what predatory publishing is and reached
a consensus definition (quoted right)
• An important part of this statement is
“entities that prioritize self-interest at
the expense of scholarship”.
Source: Grudniewics et al. (2019) Predatory journals: no definition, no defence and Cukier et al (2020) Defining predatory journals and responding to
the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process
“Predatory journals and publishers are entities
that prioritize self-interest at the expense of
scholarship and are characterized by false or
misleading information, deviation from best
editorial and publication practices, a lack
of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and
indiscriminate solicitation practices.”
27. Where did it start?
• Coined by Jeffrey Beall in 2010
• Unofficial ‘watchdog’ of predatory publishing
• Website/blog listed questionable, scholarly open-access ... www.beallslist.net
• Beall’s definition‘’…journals that ‘prey’ on (often unsuspecting and often
young) scholars to submit their manuscripts for the sole purpose of making
money from these scholars’’
Source: Berger & Cirasella (2015) Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers
Beall's list (archived):https://beallslist.net/
28. Driving forces
• Publish or perish: For many academics, career progression depends on the research
papers they publish.
Technology: Easy to set up a website, spamming thousands of potential authors and
receiving electronic payments
• Inexperience / Online environment: Working online without access to expertise to
distinguish bogus impact factors etc.
• Exploitation of the open access model: Pay-to-publish model misused*
Source: Mouton & Valentine (2017) The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals
29. Types of behavior to be aware of
1. Journal hijacking
2. Paper brokers
3. Language Plagiarism
4. Citation Manipulation
5. Journals can and will be discontinued in Scopus
30. Journal hijack
• The journal website and content gets hijacked by another party to take advantage of the
journal’s brand and reputation and use it for publication malpractice.
• Examples: Transylvanian Review, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
• Responsibility and consequences:
• In most of the cases the original journal is not to blame and there are no consequences
for the genuine journal. Content from the fake source will be removed. There is the
responsibility of Scopus to make sure that journals are sources from authentic URLs
and the coverage is complete.
31. Paper brokers
• Paper brokers –a middle man between authors and journals in which authorship of articles
can be bought. This could be with fake papers or with existing papers in which the original
authors sell authorship to an author who was not involved with the research. The target
journal may not always be involved in the scam.
• Examples: http://123mi.ru but also a publisher acting as paper broker: IJRDO
• Responsibility and consequences:
• Providing ‘publishing services’ is not a crime and Scopus can only take action if the
brand or name is being (mis)used without permission. In certain cases action can be
taken against the journals involved if they are doing this knowingly on larges scale.
Awareness of authors is important to prevent them doing business with paper brokers
and go to the journal directly.
32. Language Plagiarism
• (Language) Plagiarism – an article published in a (local language) journal is published
again in an international journal without reference to the original. Detection might be
difficult since the original document is not readily available or because of the language not
readable for everyone. The target journal may not be involved and aware.
• Examples: some cases have been identified via a report from RAS (Russia)
• Responsibility and consequences:
• Plagiarism is the responsibility of the author and particularly in this case where
detection is difficult, the journal is not to blame. Only if this happens on structural basis
and the content is not related to the scope of the journal, Scopus might need to act.
33. Citation manipulation
• Citation manipulation – citation manipulation by including references to a paper without
relevant reason is a known thing to try to boost the IF or CiteScore of a journal. However,
new is that this may be done by individual authors. Although the journal could benefit, they
may not be aware and an actor in this. We think that this malpractice is driven by authors
who get credits based on the reputation/citations of the journal they publish in.
• Examples: JCR Title suppressions
• Responsibility and consequences:
• If the journal/editor is involved, this would be a reason for re-evaluation. Scopus is
developing policies around ‘ghost citations’ coming from genuine journals to
discontinued journals after the journal is discontinued.
34. Scopus policy with regard to Predatory publishing
Poor quality journals have lower than average performance but could still be relevant to cover in
Scopus, e.g.:
• Niche journals - research published in these journals could still be of high quality and these
journals do not necessarily need to be removed from Scopus.
Predatory journals are a threat to science and should be avoided to be covered in Scopus.
• Usually, journals that are included in Scopus benefit from wider global visibility and resulting
increase of impact and quality. However, sometimes this does not happen, and the journal may
become predatory.
• When making decisions about research, it is essential that these decisions are based on data
that you can trust. Therefore, predatory journals are a threat to the integrity of Scopus and
science in general.
• Because predatory publishing is ill-defined and subject to personal interpretation, independent
review of individual journals by academic subject experts in each field is essential.
35. Journals can be discontinued from Scopus
28-2-2022
Scopus selects journals based on a rigorous process that involves
quantitative and qualitative criteria applied by the CSAB.
Scopus does not index predatory journals. What we do see is that
journal quality and behavior can change over time.
Some journals which meet our criteria at the time of acceptance into
Scopus, may decline in performance or even become predatory
36. Identifying potential poor quality or predatory journals
All +25k journals in Scopus are monitored on ongoing basis and
flagged for reevaluation based on:
• Our own observation or direct feedback from users and stakeholder’s
• Metrics and benchmarks for publication output, citation impact and self-citations are used to
identify journals that are underperforming compared to peer journals in their field.
• A machine learning tool analyzes the performance of journals according to aspects like output
growth, changes in author affiliation, citation behavior, etc. to track outlier performance
(=‘RADAR’)
• During their review, the CSAB can indicate whether any accepted title should be evaluated
again in the future. This data is collected and further analyzed to ensure continuous
curation.
37. The re-evaluation process
Monitor
Flag
Curate
Identify titles based on publication
concerns, under performance,
outlier performance or continuous
curation.
In-depth re-evaluation by the Content
Selection & Advisory Board (CSAB)
38. 17 88
Catch rate broken down by reason of identification
(2016-2020)
990
titles
re-evaluated
434
publication
concerns
332
under
performance
119
outlier
performance
289 145 165 167 65 54
67%
Discontinued
50%
Discontinued
55%
Discontinued
Discontinued
Continued
Reason of
identification
Re-evaluation
decision
105
continuous
curation
16%
Discontinued
39. What happens with journals for which the decision is made
to discontinue?
• No new content is added to Scopus.
• Content already indexed remains as a matter of scientific record and to ensure stability and consistency of
research trend analytics.
• In exceptional cases of proven severe unethical publication practice, content already indexed in Scopus may be
removed.
• CiteScore will no longer be given for discontinued titles.
41. Claim your certificate!
bit.ly/ELWPY22
EAGSYZ
1. Use this link/QR code to claim your certificate:
2. Once you fill in the survey, use the following code to claim your certificate
Note:
If you have not registered with
Elsevier ID, you will be asked to do
so. Please do register yourself
using institutional/personal email
address.
