The document discusses publishing in Wiley Materials Science journals. It provides an overview of the editorial process at Wiley, including the roles of various editors, organizers, and technical staff. It also covers what editors look for in determining the suitability of manuscripts, such as whether the topic and results fit the journal's scope. The document advises authors on writing an effective cover letter and conclusions section to maximize the chances of their work being published.

1. Publishing
in
Wiley
Materials
Science
Journals
Dr.
José
Oliveira
Wiley
(By
Taking
A
Closer
Look
at
Editorial
Processes
and
Decisions)
Hong
Kong
February
2015
How
to
Maximise
Your
Success

2. Outline
Wiley
–
An
Overview
Journals:
The
Editorial
Process
Conclusions
&
Discussion

3. The
Role
of
ScienOfic
Journals
RegistraOon
Recording
author
precedence
and
merit
DisseminaOon
Sharing
results
and
methods
Peer
Review
Quality
control
and
improvement
Archiving
Maintaining
records
of
publica:on
+
Search*
&
NavigaOon
In
the
Internet
Age
Raising
the
discoverability
Journals
tradiOonally
fulfill
4
criOcal
funcOons:
Other
systems
of
publicaOon
do
not
necessarily
offer
all
four
funcOons
(e.g.,
open
archives)
Increasingly
important:
*)
Actually,
people
don't
want
to
search,
they
want
to
find.

4. Organisers
• Correspondence
• Queries
• Administra:on
• System
Maintenance
• Repor:ng
• Support
Func:ons
Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief
(Peer
Review
Editors)
• Manuscript
Assessment
• Review
Solicita:on
• Decisionmaking
• Journal
Strategy
• Acquisi:on
• Scien:fic
Community
Interac:on
• Scien:fic
Ethics
• News
&
Portals
Technical
Editors
• Technical
Management
(Workflows)
• Manuscript
Handling
• Copyedi:ng
&
Language
Polishing
• TypeseUng
Coordina:on
• Proofs
&
Revisions
• Liaison
with
Content
Management
• News
&
Portals
Content
Management
• Service
Provider
Management
• Electronic
Publica:on
• Print
Publica:on
Editorial
Office
ProducOon
'Internal'
Editorial
Office
Structure
Publisher

5. 'External'
Editorial
Office
Structure
Organisers
• Correspondence
• Administra:on
• System
Maintenance
• Repor:ng
• Support
Func:ons
Managing
Editor
• Chief
Administrator
• Sets
Managerial
Policy
Only
• Does
NOT
Decide
on
Manuscripts
• Liaises
with
External
Editor-­‐in-­‐
Chief
Technical
Editors
• Technical
Management
(Workflows)
• Manuscript
Handling
• Copyedi:ng
&
LP
• Proofs
&
Revisions
Author
Liaison)
• Liaison
with
Content
Management
• News
&
Portals
Content
Management
• Supplier
&
Provider
Management
• Electronic
Publica:on
• Print
Publica:on
Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief
(possibly
several
regional
or
topical
editors)
Editorial
Office
ProducOon
Publisher
Professors,
Experts,
Specialists

6. What
Editors
Look
For
(Suitability)
Stage
1:
iniOal
screening
Might
be^er
fit
a
sister
journal
...
Too
long
–
should
this
be
a
Full
Paper
instead?
Scope?
Does
the
topic
fit
my
journal?
Format?
CommunicaOon,
Full
Paper,
Review,
...?
“Make
sure
the
journal
of
your
choice
publishes
the
arOcle
type
of
your
paper!”

7. Is
the
novelty
high
enough?
What
Editors
Look
For
(Manuscript
Suitability)
Difference
to
prior
work?
Important
to
the
whole
readership?
Important
to
researchers
in
this
field?
Ader
the
iniOal
check
for
scope
and
length
is
done,
the
manuscript
is
examined
more
closely:
the
most
important
hurdle!
„Publishing
space
is
limited
–
choose
a
journal
whose
readership
will
be
keen
to
see
your
results!“

8. Where
Will
The
Editor
Look?
While
reading
new
manuscripts,
editors
will
especially
look
at:
Cover
le^er

9. • Why
is
this
topic
important?
• Why
are
these
results
significant?
• What
is
the
key
result?
(breakthrough!)
• Why
is
it
an
advance
on
previous
work?
• Why
are
you
submiUng
to
this
journal?
• Why
will
this
journal’s
readers
read
it?
• Provide
reviewer
sugges:ons
Maximising
Success:
WriOng
the
Cover
Le^er
Together
with
the
conclusions
secOon
of
your
paper,
the
cover
le^er
is
one
of
the
first
things
the
editor
will
see,
so
make
it
count!
Tip:
Keep
the
le^er
as
short
as
possible
–
the
longer
it
is,
the
easier
it
becomes
to
overlook
something
important.

10.
Conclusions
secOon
of
manuscript
Where
Will
The
Editor
Look?
While
reading
new
manuscripts,
editors
will
especially
look
at:
Cover
le^er
“If
I‘m
interested,
my
readers
will
be,
too!ˮ
Keywords
Literature
references
Visual
informaOon
Abstract

11. Double
Blind
-­‐ Author
iden:ty
concealed
-­‐ Referee
iden:ty
concealed
-­‐ Advantage:
No
bias
towards
or
against
authors
(but
iden:ty
o^en
obvious)
-­‐ Disadvantage:
Referees
cannot
check
publica:on
history
of
author
Types
of
Peer
Review
Single
Blind
-­‐ Author
iden:ty
revealed
-­‐ Referee
iden:ty
concealed
-­‐ Advantage:
Referees
can
be
honest
without
fear
of
reper-­‐
cussions
-­‐ Disadvantage:
Referees
can
hide
personal
agenda
behind
anonymity
Non-­‐Blind
-­‐ Author
and
referee
iden:ty
revealed
-­‐ Advantage:
Transparent
and
authors
are
aware
if
there
is
a
conflict
of
interest
-­‐ Disadvantage:
Referees
may
not
be
totally
honest,
concerns
about
conflict
and
retalia:on
Open
-­‐ Paper
open
to
public
refereeing
-­‐ Advantage:
Transparency
and
community
involvement
-­‐ Disadvantage:
Open
to
abuse,
comments
by
non-­‐specialists,
true
specialists
may
choose
not
to
comment.

12. SuggesOons
from
authors
Very
helpful!
Not
just
the
biggest
names
please
–
others
as
well
List
people
with
conflicts
of
interest
who
should
not
be
asked
to
review
SelecOng
Reviewers
Quality
of
peer
review
depends
on
good
reviewer
choices
Our
reviewer
database
>
30,000
ac:ve
reviewers
Are
found
via
keywords,
interests,
own
publica:on
history,
or
reviewing
history
“You
can
help
keep
decision
Omes
short
with
good
keywords
and
reviewer
suggesOons!ˮ
SuggesOons
from
our
Advisory
Board
Members
Especially
in
difficult
cases,
appeals
or
disputes
we
are
supported
by
our
board
members
SuggesOons
from
other
reviewers
Can
provide
leads
to
further
candidates
Editor‘s
own
knowledge
of
the
community
Contacts
from
conferences,
prominent
scien:sts,
regular
authors,
etc.

13. Is
the
moOvaOon
important?
What
We
Ask
Our
Reviewers
To
Look
For
Quality
of
peer
review
depends
also
on
clear
reviewer
reports
Is
the
moOvaOon
clear?
“Besides
your
general
opinion,
please
give
clear
reasons
for
rejecOon
or
acceptance!ˮ
Is
the
work
novel
and
original?
Are
the
conclusions
supported
by
the
data?
Are
the
results
important?
(are
they
interesOng?)
Are
there
any
ethical
quesOons?
Is
the
presentaOon
clear?
Were
any
flaws
or
mistakes
found?
Should
anything
be
added
or
removed?

14. • Falsifying
data
• Fabrica:ng
data
• Plagiarism
• Mul:ple
concurrent
submissions
• Image
manipula:on
• Authorship
misrepresenta:on
• Duplicate
publica:on
Ethical
Misconduct
Examples
of
ethical
misconduct
that
must
not
be
tolerated:
All
of
the
above
can
have
serious
consequences
for
the
author,
ranging
from
a
le^er
of
reprimand
all
the
way
up
to
criminal
proceedings
(e.g.,
Jan
Hendrik
Schön,
Woo
Suk
Hwang)

15. Plagiarism
DetecOon
Text
Overlap:
What
Is
Acceptable
and
What
Isn't

16. Journal
Impact
Factor
isn‘t
everything!
What
are
the
implicaOons
of
your
research?
How
important
will
others
find
your
research?
In
your
field?
In
related
fields?
Where
do
you
read
papers
related
to
your
research?
Which
journal
does
your
community
like
the
most?
What
is
the
scope
and
format
of
your
candidate
journal?
Whose
a^enOon
and
interest
will
your
work
have
to
win?
Where
were
your
literature
references
published?
Whom
do
you
want
to
reach
with
this
publicaOon?
Where
did
you
publish
your
earlier
work
on
this
topic?
Finding
the
Right
Journal
Ask
yourself
quesOons
...
8
potenOal
journals
for
a
polymer
paper
2008
IF
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

17. Carefully
consider
reviewer
comments
Not
all
changes
that
the
reviewers
want
have
to
be
made…
Prepare
revision
Revise
manuscript
Highlight
changes
in
manuscript!
Point-­‐by-­‐point
response
to
all
reviewer
issues
Changes
made
and
why
which
changes
were
not
made!
Response
will
likely
go
back
to
reviewers!
Revisions
Requested:
How
Should
I
Revise?
…but
you
need
convincing
arguments
for
changes
not
made
Need
to
convince
editor
and
reviewers!

18. Usually,
no
Risk
of
long
:me
to
publica:on
Good
papers
are
no:ced
and
cited
no
maier
where
they
are
published
Editors
and
referees
know
journal
Cri:cism
may
be
valid!
Occasionally,
yes
Importance,
impact
or
novelty
missed
by
the
editor
/
referees
(Need
for
a
good
cover
leier!)
Factual
errors
in
referee
reports
that
led
to
rejec:on
Decisions:
Should
I
Appeal?

19. Press
releases,
reprints,
cover
posters
Please
contact
us
if
you
would
like
our
support
for
drawing
up
a
press
release,
ar:cle
reprints
or
your
cover
as
a
60×40
or
85×60
cm
size
poster
When
Your
Manuscript
is
Accepted
Please
carry
out
quickly
any
revisions
requested!
The
earlier
we
receive
your
final
version,
the
faster
we
can
publish
your
paper!
“CongratulaOons
on
your
results!
Please
send
us
more
of
your
excellent
work!ˮ
HighlighOng
on
our
online
news
service
All
Advances
in
Advance
and
Very
Important
Papers
as
well
as
further
papers
selected
by
the
editors
are
highlighted
on
MaterialsViews.com
for
beier
discoverability
See
also
www.twitter.com
/materialsviews
for
announcements
of
ar:cles
published
&
more
MaterialsViews.com

20.
Your
place
for
the
latest
materials
science
news
and
opinion:
- Breaking
news
and
research
highlights
from
across
the
field
- Opinion
arOcles
from
figures
in
research
and
industry
- Jobs
and
careers
informa:on
from
Wiley
Job
Network
- Book
reviews,
conference
updates,
and
product
informa:on
- Weekly
updates
via
email

21. • Structure
your
research
with
future
papers
already
in
mind!
• Unpublished
work
is
lost!
• Scien:fic
output
is
growing
fast,
crea:ng
more
publica:ons
and
more
compe::on
for
journal
space
• Wiley
puts
great
effort
into
making
its
content
stand
out
visibly
in
the
growing
„crowd“
• Reader
interest
and
discoverability
are
the
keys
to
manuscript
dissemina:on
and
consequently,
cita:on
• The
USA
and
Europe
are
s:ll
very
strong,
but
Asian
countries
are
growing
fast
and
have
caught
up
impressively
• CompeOOon
is
tough,
so
make
your
work
stand
out!
Conclusions

22. 谢谢!
Thank
You!
QuesOons?
问题?