A training workshop that assists authors with the process of writing, submitting, editing, and reviewing manuscripts.

1. Dr. Dalia El-Shafei
Assist.Prof., Community Medicine Department, Zagazig University
http://www.slideshare.net/daliaelshafei

3. A training workshop that assists authors with the process of
writing, submitting, editing, and reviewing manuscripts.
Writing
Submitting
Editing
Reviewing

4. 1- I know how to choose a right journal to my
manuscript
Stronglyagree
Agree
Donotknow
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
2- I understand the manuscript processing steps from
preparation till proof reading
3- I can write the cover letter, research highlights, and
practical applications.
4- I can choose the suitable reviewers to my articles.
5- I can write point-by-point response to reviewers
comments.
6- I understand how journal impact factor & h-index
be calculated
7- I know how to market my published research

5.  To contribute to global knowledge.
 Research is not complete until it has been published.
 To help collaborations & team work.
 To help advance your career.
 Prestige!!
 Financial incentives.

8. Ranking
Quality of writing
Prizes
Grants &
Scholarships
•Main factor for ranking
universities.
•Revision process always
improve the quality of
writing.
•Universities & other
associations provide prizes.
•Increase opportunities.

9. 18030
38

15. Cost
Time

18. Pre-writing
1- Develop outline of
manuscript
2- Select a Target journal
3- Read Author’s Guidelines
Writing
1- Methodology
2- Results
3- Discussion
4- Introduction
5- Abstract
6- Graphical abstract.
7- Research highlights.
8- Title
9- Proof reading
10- Internal review
Post-writing
1- Write cover letter.
2- Select potential Reviewers
3- Submission to journal.
4- Revision-resubmission.
5- Acceptance.
6- Approval of gallery proof
7- Marketing of published
paper

20. Pre-writing
1- Develop outline
of manuscript
2- Select a Target
journal
3- Read Author’s
Guidelines
Writing
1- Methodology
2- Results
3- Discussion
4- Introduction
5- Abstract
6- Graphical abstract.
7- Research highlights.
8- Title
9- Proof reading
10- Internal review
Post-writing
1- Write cover letter.
2- Select potential
Reviewers
3- Submission to journal.
4- Revision-resubmission.
5- Acceptance.
6- Approval of gallery proof
7- Marketing of published
paper

21.  Develop outline of manuscript “Deciding WHAT or
WHEN to publish”.
 Select a Target journal
 Read Author’s Guidelines.

22.  Quality of the work
 Seek guidance from others in your field who are
more experienced in publishing.

23. Original Research “Original Article, Research Article,
Research, or just Article”
Short reports or Letters “Brief communications or
Research note”
Review article

26. Peer-reviewed,
support open
access
Peer-reviewed,
Open access

27. International
publishing
housesElsevier
Springer
Wiley
Taylor &
Francis
SAGE

29.  Scope of the journal
 Target Audience.
 Types of articles published.
 Open access option.
 Impact factor.
 Journal indexing.
 Acceptance Rate & Speed.
 Publication Speed & Frequency.

30.  Journal guide
https://www.journalguide.com/
 JANE
http://jane.biosemantics.org/
 Elsevier journal finder
https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
 Springer journal suggester
https://journalsuggester.springer.com/

50. The Journal IF is published each year by Thomson Reuters.
Measure no. of times an average paper in a particular journal is
referred to.

51.  Journal Homepage

55. Bulletin of Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University 3.075
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 1.558
Journal of Immunology Research 1.352
Neural Plasticity 1.348
Journal of Cancer Epidemiology 1.301
Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1.270
Cardiology Research and Practice 1.237
PPAR Research 1.204
Advances in Orthopedics 0.922
Sarcoma 0.898
Prostate Cancer 0.890
International Journal of Genomics 0.868
Journal of Skin Cancer 0.840
HPB Surgery 0.824
Dermatology Research and Practice 0.806
Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science 0.803
Journal of Advanced Research 0.741
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 0.683
AEJ - Alexandria Engineering Journal 0.604
Advances in Pharmacological Sciences 0.591
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 0.589
Journal of Advanced Transportation 0.581
Complexity 0.531

57. Pre-writing
1- Develop outline of
manuscript
2- Select a Target journal
3- Read Author’s Guidelines
Writing
1- Methodology
2- Results
3- Discussion
4- Introduction
5- Abstract
6- Graphical abstract.
7- Research highlights.
8- Title
9- Proof reading
10- Internal review
Post-writing
1- Write cover letter.
2- Select potential Reviewers
3- Submission to journal.
4- Revision-resubmission.
5- Acceptance.
6- Approval of gallery proof
7- Marketing of published
paper

59. Methods Results Discussion &
Conclusion Introduction
Abstract
“Summery”
Research
highlights
Practical
applications
“industrial
relevance”
Title

60. IMRaD refers to the standard structure of the body of
research manuscripts (after the Title & Abstract):
 Introduction
 Materials & Methods
 Results
 Discussion & Conclusions

62.  Fewest possible words
“adequately indicate the
contents of the paper”.
 No EXTRA words “Study of” or
“Observations on”.
 Specific
 No Abbreviations.

63.  Short version of title (50 characters or fewer, including
spaces) “appears at tops of pages”
The article title was:
Patient's Perspective of Blow-out Fractures of the orbit.
The running title was:
"Is My Eyesight Gone", which was a quote from one of the
participants.

64.  Intellectual contributions to the work
 Often listed largely from greatest contributions to least
 Best to list one’s name the same way on every paper.

65.  Title: concise & informative
 Author names & affiliations
 Corresponding author: Handle correspondence at all stages.
“Telephone & fax no. “with country & area code”, e-mail address &
complete postal address”.
 Present/permanent address: If an author has moved since the work
was done, or was visiting at the time, a “present address” or “permanent
address: may be indicated as a footnote to that author’s name.

66. Commonly “250-300” words.
Sometimes with standardized headings:
• Background (2 sentences)
• Methods (2 sentences)
• Results (5 sentences)
• Conclusion (1 sentence)
Keywords
 Represent content of manuscript
 Be specific to your field or sub-field
 Usually (3 – 10) keywords.

67. Specifications:
• Include 3 - 5 highlights.
• There might be a maximum of 85 characters, including
spaces, per highlight.
• Only the core results of the paper.
• Should be submitted in a separate file.

68. Single, concise,
pictorial & visual
summary of the main
findings of the article.
- Concluding figure
from the article Or
- Figure that is
specially designed.

70.  Short description (max. 150 words) of the practical applications
of research.
 Should highlight the uses of the research.

73. Typically should be (Funnel-shaped)
moving from general to specific (1-1.5
pages)
Citations should be:
Well Balanced, Current, Relevant.

74. Helpful to use papers published in the same journal as
models.
Check the ‘Instructions for Authors’ for your target journal to
see how manuscripts should present the Materials & Methods.

75. Use the same format for all tables .
• CORE of the paper.
• Use subheadings to separate the results of different experiments.
• Should be presented in a logical order & in order of importance.
• Use the past tense to describe your results; however, refer to figures and
tables in the present tense.
• Do not duplicate data among figures, tables, and text.
Follow the journal’s instructions.

76. • Typically should move from specific
to general (Opposite to
introduction)
• In some journals, is followed by a
(Conclusion) section.
• In some journals, is combined with
the results section.
• In some short papers, is called
(Comment) rather than (Discussion)

77.  Strengths of the study
For example, superior methods, extensive data.
 Limitations of the study
- For example: small sample size, incomplete data, and problems
with experimental procedures.
- Better to mention limitations than for peer reviewers & readers to
think that you're unaware of them.

78.  Often optional.
 A place to thank people who helped with the work but did not
make contributions deserving authorship.
 Permission should be obtained from people you wish to list.
 Sometimes the place where sources of financial support are
stated. “If you need to include funding information, list the
name(s) of the funding organization(s) in full, and identify
which authors received funding for what”

79.  To give credit to others for their work
 To add credibility to your work by
showing that you used valid
information sources
 To help readers find further
information.

83.  Authenticity “not fabricated”
 Accuracy
• Providing complete data “not only those supporting one’s
hypothesis”
• Avoiding manipulation of image.
• Using statistical procedures.
 Credit: plagiarism software
 Ethical ttt of humans & animals: IRB approved.
Authenticity
& Accuracy
Originality Credit
Ethical ttt of
humans &
animals

85. Pre-writing
1- Develop outline of
manuscript
2- Select a Target journal
3- Read Author’s Guidelines
Writing
1- Methodology
2- Results
3- Discussion
4- Introduction
5- Abstract
6- Graphical abstract.
7- Research highlights.
8- Title
9- Proof reading
10- Internal review
Post-writing
1- Write cover letter.
2- Select potential
Reviewers
3- Submission to journal.
4- Revision-resubmission.
5- Acceptance.
6- Approval of gallery
proof
7- Marketing of published
paper

87. It could be the difference between a manuscript sent
for external review & one rejected without further
consideration!

90. Be sure that:
 Manuscript follows the Instructions for Authors.
 You have contact information for all authors.
 You have written a persuasive cover letter.
 All files are in the correct file format & of the
appropriate resolution or size.
 The spelling & grammar are correct.

93.  Help Editor to move manuscript to review stage more
efficiently
 Find potential reviewers & their contact details from
articles in your specific subject area (e.g. References)
 Reviewers should represent at least 2 regions of the
world “Not your supervisors or close friends”.
 Be prepared to suggest 3-6 potential reviewers.

94.  Select the best manuscript for the journals.
 Improve the quality of the published papers.
 Determine the importance of findings.
 Determine the originality of the manuscript.
 Ensure that previous work is acknowledged.
 Detect plagiarism
 Detect fraud.
Reviewers are NOT asked to
detect plagiarism,
fraud and other ethics issues
But it would be great if they could
& would !!

96.  Technical Screening is a process to solve ‘technical’ problems
such as poor English.
 Manuscripts that do not meet standard are returned to the
corresponding author, with a check-list of missing or
insufficient items.
 Authors can resubmit the paper after attending to these
technical insufficiencies.

99.  Journals have different assessment forms for reviewers.
 Reviewers should consider different points & write
confidential comments.

104. Your article might be
 Acceptedas it is.
 Acceptedafter minorrevision
 Acceptedafter majorrevision
 Rejected& couldbe resubmitted
 Rejected

105. Incorrect
journal “out
of scope”
Incorrect type
allocation
Incorrect
format
Bad language
Plagiarism
Unsound
work
Unoriginal
work
Previous
rejection
Bad response
to reviewers’
comments.

106. The decision might be frustrating & enraging, but
remember that in most cases the decision is not a
personal but a professional one (& in many cases the
reviewers' comments improve the next versions of the
manuscript).

107. Appeal the rejection
Revise & Resubmit to the same journal
Make changes & submit to a different journal
Make no changes & submit to another journal
File the manuscript away & never resubmit it

108.  Base your appeal on logic & not emotion.
 Be sure you have strong evidence or new data
before trying to change the editor’s mind.
 Include a point-by-point response to any reviewer
comments.

109. Do not make appeals personal attacks on the editors or
reviewers.
Editors make decisions on manuscripts using a variety of
criteria, if one of your manuscripts is rejected it does
not mean the journal or the editor won’t be willing to
consider your work again in the future.
Appeals based on the scope of journal or perceived impact
of your work are unlikely to succeed

110. Journal may reject your initial offering but invite you to resubmit
later after addressing the reviewers’ concerns.
If you are strongly interested in publishing in that journal, this
option may be your top choice.
“Remember that some journals will inform
you that they are not interested in accepting
any future versions of the manuscript”; you
should respect this decision & try a different
journal

111. Be sure to adjust details before resubmission:
 Cover letter,
 Reference format,
 Other journal-specified details

112. Not a good idea
• New reviewers are likely to pick up on several of the
same issues; you now have a chance to address them
ahead of time.
• Manuscript may actually be reviewed by some of the
same people at new journal.

113. It can be easy to decide that your paper simply isn’t worth the
trouble of resubmission.
 Finally, you can post your work to a site like figshare or
Dryad, where it will be citable and freely accessible.

114. There may be cases when you want to submit to
another journal prior to receiving a decision.
For example, if your results are time sensitive, the review
process is taking much longer than normal for that journal,
and the editors cannot speed up the process.
In this case, it is important to notify the editors that you are
withdrawing your manuscript, and get confirmation that
this it has been withdrawn, before you submit it to a
different journal.

116.  Take a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath!
 Read the comments verrrrrry carefully!!
 Discuss them with co-authors.
 Respond POSITIVELY to each point “Point by Point
Response letter”
 Be Polite & Say “Thank you” to each reviewer.
 Provide scientific reasons with your rebuttal.
 If a reviewer makes SUBJECTIVE comment about
language style, just change it to make him/her HAPPY.
 Return within DEADLINE, or it will become a new
submission.

117. Dear Editor in chief
It is my pleasure to send you the revised version of my/our article entitled
“Article title” to be considered for publication in your journal.
Thanks for the careful revision that been done to my/our article. The comments
and suggestion highlighted by reviewers have been considered in the revised
manuscript. The modifications, additions and corrections are appeared in red
color within article.
Hoping that the changes introduced improve the manuscript in satisfactory
way, I remain
With my best regards
Sincerely yours,

118. The following is an example as to how to respond to a reviewer comment:
Reviewer comment: “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat
obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would
have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare
to previous results.
Response in agreement with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment
of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data
in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would
be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over
previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian
fitting function.”
Response disagreeing with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer that a simple
Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However,
our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model
[Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to
explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.

122.  Attention to details
 Check & double check your work
 Consider Reviewers’ comments
 English must be as good as possible
 Presentation is important
 Take your time with revision
 Acknowledge those who have helped you
 New, original work
 Critically evaluate your manuscript
 Ethical rules must be obeyed.

124.  Proof-reading is the reading of a proof to detect & correct
production-errors of text.
 Before publication authors receive page proofs via e-mail,
together with a sheet including instructions.
Corrections must be returned within 48 hours.

126. -An index that attempts to measure both the productivity & impact
of the published work of a scientist or group of scientists, such as a
department or university or country.

127. 49

128. 231

134. 1- I know how to choose a right journal to my
manuscript
Stronglyagree
Agree
Donotknow
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
2- I understand the manuscript processing steps from
preparation till proof reading
3- I can write the cover letter, research highlights, and
practical applications.
4- I can choose the suitable reviewers to my articles.
5- I can write point-by-point response to reviewers
comments.
6- I understand how journal impact factor & h-index
be calculated
7- I know how to market my published research