Editor of Colloid and Surfaces B. What do I, as an editor, look for in order to reach a favourable decision on a manuscript? Prof. dr. ir. Henk Busscher Head of Department of Biomedical Engineering, UMCG

1. Henk J. Busscher
The WJ Kolff Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Materials Science
University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen
Groningen, The Netherlands

2. How to write a world-class paper
-
Looking through the eyes of an editor
Henk J. Busscher
Founding-editor: Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces
1992 – present

3. What is the first question going through your mind? What has this guy established
himself in science?
Web-of-Science Summary (October 2014)
Number of articles 545
Total number of citations 16117
Average number of citations per paper 29.57
H-factor 60
Total number of theses (co-)supervised 84
JW Costerton (died age of 80, 2 years ago)
513
38147
74.36
80

4. What is the second question going through your mind? How many world class papers
did he write?
None deliberately
Most cited papers
FEMS Microbiology reviews 491
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 402
Colloids and Surfaces 252
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 251
Biomaterials 246

5. I will not teach you
how to write a world-class paper
1. Show you how I perform my duties as an editor.
2. Teach you how to look at your manuscripts
through the eyes of an editor.

6. Disclaimer
AUTHOR Henk J. Busscher
dislikes
EDITOR Henk J. Busscher
as much as you will do after this talk.
AUTHOR Henk J. Busscher
will not always write his papers according to the instructions of
EDITOR Henk J. Busscher.
FOR YOU:
EDITOR Henk J. Busscher
is always right.
FOR MY STUDENTS AND CO-WORKERS:
AUTHOR Henk J. Busscher
is always more right than
EDITOR Henk J. Busscher.

7. About Colloids and Surfaces B
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces is
an international journal
devoted to fundamental and applied research
on colloid and interfacial phenomena
in relation to
systems of biological origin,
having particular relevance to
the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnological, food and
cosmetic fields.

8. Editors want higher
Impact Factors
for their journals
I do not want to remain editor
target region of a mediocre journal

9. What is the thing to do
for an editor to increase
the Impact Factor?
REJECT
versus
IMPROVE
(in the old days, when there were less papers)

10. Steps we took
BIGGEST STEP: Got rid of the “Oh my God papers”
- very long because of ridiculous sentences:
“this results of this study show data that indicate that journals impact
factors increase with increasing rejection rates of manuscripts by the
editor”
- introduction is knowledge exhibition without an aim
- lots of figures and tables with combined Results and Discussion section
SECOND BIGGEST STEP: Enforced our identity as a journal
- adhere strictly to aim and scope
THIRD STEP: …………………….

11. What is your biggest
frustration as an author?
Rejection within 2 min,
“after careful reading and consideration”

12. Do you think an editor will
read your entire paper?
IMPOSSIBLE,
even if you only receive
400 manuscripts per year

13. How much time do you believe an
editor should spend on a paper
for taking a first decision?
The publication system
is
completely overheated
(15 - 30 min max for first decision?)

14. Do you believe I understand all
the papers that I handle?
NO

15. CONCLUSION OF ALL THIS:
Initial editorial decisions are largely intuitive
This is why author Henk J. Busscher
wants every comma and
dot in his papers at the right place!
The abstract to be clear and informative,
the cover letter to be convincing, etcetera.

16. What do I initially look at?
Title
- Do I understand what the paper will be about
- Informative
- Appealing to a large group of readers

17. What do I initially look at?
Abstract
- In line with title
- Indicate the general significance
- Aim
- Results described in sufficient detail
- Conclusion, preferably in broader perspective
- Use all the words we offer
(do not forget to change your abstract after rejection by Nature
allowing only 50 words for an abstract)

18. What do I initially look at?
Introduction
- Not about what you know (“knowledge exhibition”)
- Does it identify knowledge gaps in the current literature
- Does it explain an urgency to fill these gaps
- What will the paper yield to fill that gap
- A clear aim
A BAD aim:
- To make an inventory of authors responses to rude editors
- The aim of this study is to study editors responses to rude authors
(“research for the sake of research”)
A GOOD aim:
- To find a relation between editors rudeness and the impact factor of
a journal
(“may reveal a mechanism”)

19. What do I initially not look at?
Materials and Methods
- Not at the initial stage

20. What do I look at?
Figures and Tables
- Clear, standard deviations with explanations.
- Do they present data in a way to suggest analysis of
mechanisms?
NOT table 1: editors rudeness for different journals
table 2: impact factor of different journals
YES a graph of rudeness versus impact factor
- We are an basic science journal with a physics background,
DATA should not only be electron micrographs, histological
images, or a photograph of a test tube

21. What do I look at
Results and discussion combined?
Authors combining both sections usually
- Have a lot of data and do not know what
to make of them
OR
- Have little data and hide that in a cloud of literature
considerations
I want to see what data the authors add (RESULTS)
and how it fits in and forwards the field (DISCUSSION)

22. If in doubt about suitability
for CSB,
I consult the references
- Are the majority of the references to our
competitor journals in the field (excellent!).
- Or to CSB (even better).

23. If still in doubt,
I consult the cover letter
I never base my decision solely
on a cover letter
(may be different with Nature and Science,
taking only 2 min per decision)

24. And when still in doubt,
I look at suggested reviewers
International spread:
A paper from UMCG with only UMCG reviewers
suggested??????
Sufficient detail:
Reviewer: 1243@gmail.com??????
I always use one editorial
board member and possibly
another external reviewer

25. The characteristics
of a good paper
1. I look at the title.
2. I want to read the abstract.
3. It excites me and I want to read the introduction.
4. The 20.00 hours news starts, but I tell my wife I
have no interest today.
5. I want to finish reading the whole paper before
doing anything else!

26. And there you go:
rejected or taken into consideration
80% rejection rate upon submission
BUT
once you are in, 80% chance of acceptance

27. Is it a fun job to be editor?
It felt like an honour to be asked in 1992
It feels like a duty to science now
It is a miserable job with the increase in the number of
papers received
BUT
1. It forces me to keep reading papers
2. It teaches me about what is behind
the scenes in publishing
1. It gives a great network

28. The biggest reward
Young authors that thank you
for teaching them
how to improve their manuscript

29. How to write a world-class paper
-
TAKE HOME MESSAGE
(never more than 3!)
Try to realize how editors think and work
when writing your paper