Presentation given on 16 June 2017 by John Uhlrich, as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Energy Technology published by Wiley-VCH, on how to write high-impact research papers from the editorial perspective.

1. © 2017
Publishing Scientific Research &
How to Write High-Impact Research Papers
Dr. John Uhlrich
Editor

2. © 2017
1) About Wiley-VCH
2) The psychology of editors and reviewers
and demystifying the publication process
3) Writing for scientific success
4) Q & A
Today’s Talk

3. © 2017
• PhD students?
• Post-Docs or beyond?
• Who has already published something?
• Have you had the opportunity to act as a
peer reviewer for a submitted research
manuscript?
• Who can imagine a career in publishing?
Who are you?

4. © 2017
Who am I?
• Chemical Engineering, PhD University of
Wisconsin, USA
• Interface Chemistry of Hybrid Photovoltaic
Materials/Devices
• Postdoc 2009-2011: Fritz Haber Institute, Berlin
Department of Chemical Physics (H.J. Freund)
• Surface Science for Model Catalysis
• 2011– 2012:
– Editor, Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional
Materials
• 2012-present:
– Editor, Energy Technology

5. © 2017
Who am I?
• Chemical Engineering, PhD University of
Wisconsin, USA
• Interface Chemistry of Hybrid Photovoltaic
Materials/Devices
• Postdoc 2009-2011: Fritz Haber Institute, Berlin
Department of Chemical Physics (H.J. Freund)
• Surface Science for Model Catalysis
• 2011– 2012:
– Editor, Advanced Materials, Advanced Functional
Materials
• 2012-present:
– Editor, Energy Technology

6. © 2017
John Wiley & Sons
South Korea
Founded in 1807 in New York City by John Wiley
To this day family-owned in the 6th generation
Approx. 5,000 staff worldwide
Wiley Online Library has 130 million users
1,500 journals, 1200 society partners
Company headquarters are in Hoboken (New Jersey)
Wiley-VCH (Germany) has been part of Wiley since 1996

7. © 2017
Weinheim office

8. © 2017
• Wiley-VCH, Wiley-Blackwell, Ernst & Sohn, GIT
• Weinheim, Berlin, Zürich (CH)
• 530 employees (450/ 70/ 14)
– ~ 70% female - 30% male
– Average age ~ 42 years
– Average time with Wiley-VCH ~ 10 years
– Foreign employees 40%
from 24 different nations
• Primarily chemists, followed by materials scientists, physicists, biologists,
mathematicians
Our Office

9. © 2017
Wiley-VCH Journal Genealogy

10. © 2017
1500 journals, books
And More...

11. © 2017
• Honestly assess the
importance/impact and
scope of your work
• Journal Impact Factor is not
everything!
• What are the implications
of your research?
• How important will others
find your research?
– In your field?
– In related fields?
• Publication fees? Open
access?
• Speed of publication?
• What is the scope of your
candidate journal?
• Who reads your candidate
journal?
Selecting the Journal

12. © 2017
Publishing by the numbers
1) On the author level: Hirsch Index (H-Index)
- h published articles, each cited at least h times
2) On the journal level: Impact Factor
- measures level of citation of articles in a given journal
3) On the article level: Altmetrics
Nothing replaces reading the article itself!
- measures the attention an individual article receives
on social media and in the news

13. © 2017
Number of source items published in 2015 and 2014
_________________________________
Impact Factor2016 =
Number of citations in 2016 to articles published in 2015 and 2014
Example
Journal of … publishes 75 articles in 2014 and
83 articles in 2015.
In 2016 it receives a total of 344 citations to
these articles in all the other published journals.
The journal’s Impact Factor for 2016 is
344  (75 + 83) = 2.18
2016
2013
2012
2011
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Cited
window
Citing
window
2016
2014
2015
Impact Factor (IF)
The 2016 Impact Factor first appears in 2017.

14. © 2017
“...originally appeared in a postscript of my previous Editorial,
and then it was just to note that I did not wish to write about
it because it has become a plague. ”

15. © 2017
1) Arbitrary 2-year window, citation practices depend upon the field and
on the specific work
2) Assumes that all citations are positive (a citation is not necessarily
an endorsement!)
3) Overinterpretation and misuse of the Impact Factor values: doesn’t
say anything about the quality of an individual work
4) Incentives for poor research practice & unethical behavior (on the
parts of both publishers and authors)
Problems with IF-based Assessment

16. © 2017
•Covering the technical aspects of
applied energy research
–Generation
–Conversion
–Storage
–Distribution
•Companion journal of other related
Wiley titles (Advanced Energy
Materials, ChemSusChem, etc.)
•Listed in important databases
(ISI, Web of Knowledge)
•Impact Factor (2016): 2.789
•Online publication (no color fees)
Launched in 2013
Editor-in-Chief
Dr. John Uhlrich

17. © 2017
Printed Energy Technologies
Energy Storage Materials/Batteries
Shale Gas Technology
Fraunhofer ISE (Solar Energy Systems)
Special Issues
Chemical Looping Li-Ion Batteries
Pyrolysis
Energy, Science & Engineering
Conference

18. © 2017
Printed Energy Technologies
Energy Storage Materials/Batteries
Shale Gas Technology
Fraunhofer ISE (Solar Energy Systems)
Energy, Science & Engineering
Conference
On the way:
• CO2 Utilization
• KIT Energy
Research
Special Issues
Chemical Looping Li-Ion Batteries
Pyrolysis

19. © 2017
“If your research does not generate papers, it
might just as well not have been done.
‘Interesting and unpublished‘ is equivalent to
non-existant.“
“Realize that your objective in research is to
formulate and test hypotheses, to draw
conclusions from these tests, and to teach
these conclusions to others. Your objective is
not to ‘collect data‘.“
George Whitesides, “Whitesides‘ Group: Writing a
Paper“, Essay in Advanced Materials, 2004, 16, 1375 .
Why publish at all?

20. © 2017
Don't underestimate how hard it is or
how long it takes to write a good paper.

21. © 2017
Is the novelty
high enough?
Difference to
prior work?
Important to the
whole readership?
Important to
researchers
in this field?
After the initial 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!“
What Editors Look For (Manuscript Suitability)

22. © 2017
Conclusions section of manuscript
While reading new manuscripts, editors will especially look at:
Cover letter “If I‘m interested, my
readers will be, too!ˮ
Keywords
Literature references
Visual information
Abstract
Where will the Editor look?

23. © 2017
Cover Letter: The Worst Type

24. © 2017
• 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 submitting to this journal?
• Why will this journal’s readers read it?
• Provide reviewer suggestions
Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover
letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it
count!
Tip: Keep the letter as concise as possible – the longer it is, the
easier it becomes to overlook something important.
Maximizing Success: Writing the Cover Letter

25. © 2017
• 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 submitting to this journal?
• Why will this journal’s readers read it?
• Provide reviewer suggestions
Together with the conclusions section of your paper, the cover
letter is one of the first things the editor will see, so make it
count!
Tip: Keep the letter as concise as possible – the longer it is, the
easier it becomes to overlook something important.
Maximizing Success: Writing the Cover Letter
Solar Cell Example:
We have fabricated a solar cell with high efficiency and stability,
using earth-abundant materials, by using a simple synthetic method,
nontoxic precursors, using a scaleable fabrication procedure, with a
unique combination materials that increase our fundamental
understanding of photovoltaic devices.

26. © 2017
Manuscript rejected on reports
Manuscript submitted
Editors examine &
make initial decision in house
Manuscript sent out
for external peer review
Editor makes decision
based on reports
Manuscript is accepted as
is or with minor revisions
Manuscript transferred
to the publication workflow
Manuscript rejected on reports
but reinvited if
major revisions promising
Manuscript rejected on topic,
novelty, or quality
Revisions requested
if possible in short time
Manuscript rejected on format
but reinvited (e.g., shorten)
Peer Review Editorial Workflow

27. © 2017
• Present data honestly and accurately, not
fabricate or falsify data
• Reference and cite properly, not plagiarize or
ignore related work
• Avoid fragmentation and redundant
publication
• Inform the editor of related manuscripts under
consideration or in press
• Submit to only one journal at a time
• Disclose conflicts of interest
Author Responsibilities

28. © 2017
• Ensure efficient, fair, and timely manuscript processing
• Ensure confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Make the final decision for accepting or rejecting
• Base decision to accept or reject only on the merits of
the manuscript
• Not use work reported in a submitted manuscript for
their own research
• Ensure fair selection of referees, including those
suggested or requested for exclusion by author
• Respond to suggestions of scientific misconduct
• Deal fairly with author appeals
Editor Responsibilities

29. © 2017
• Treat it as a discussion of your paper from one of the top
experts in your field.
• Don’t take it personally – it is not an attack on you!
• Be thorough and a little self-critical; remember that the referee
is trying to help you improve your work and its presentation.
• Remember that everyone is human! Take every criticism as
an opportunity for improvement; this is a “trial run“ for how
your work may be perceived after publication.
How to Read a Referee Report
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/01/18/15-steps-to-revising-journal-articles/

30. © 2017
• Treat it as a discussion of your paper from one of the top
experts in your field.
• Don’t take it personally – it is not an attack on you!
• Be thorough and a little self-critical; remember that the referee
is trying to help you improve your work and its presentation.
• Remember that everyone is human! Take every criticism as
an opportunity for improvement; this is a “trial run“ for how
your work may be perceived after publication.
How to Read a Referee Report
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/01/18/15-steps-to-revising-journal-articles/
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-
network/2017/mar/31/dear-anonymous-peer-reviewer-
your-criticism-made-me-a-better-researcher

31. Credit: Nick Kim (www.nearingzero.net)
Stay Calm 

32. © 2017
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/09/23/10-easy-ways-to-make-sure-your-article-gets-read/
Search-engine optimization
Your institutional library
and press office
Departmental webpage
Personal webpage
Videos & blogs
Social media
Promoting Your Published Work

33. © 2017
1. Have something to say.
2. Say it.
3. Stop as soon as you have said it!
4. Give the paper a proper title!
Source:
John S. Billings:
An Address on
our Medical
Literature.
Br Med J (1881)
2:262-268.
The Four Basic Rules

34. © 2017
Titles and abstracts are searchable separately from the
main paper in databases and online
Therefore to increase your paper’s “discoverability”:
give it a specific and concise title
include many appropriate keywords
“search-engine optimization”
Title & Abstract

35. © 2017
What effect?
Which metal(s)?
What type of coupling reaction(s)?
Which aryl alcohols?
Specific
Concise
Contains many keywords
Effect of Metal Catalyst on the
Outcome of Coupling Reactions
with Aryl Alcohols
Ruthenium Trichloride:
An Effective Catalyst for C-H
Activation with 2,4-Disubstituted
Aryl Alcohols
Targeting Your Title

36. © 2017
www.ChemistryViews.org
Getting Help: Resources
Have a friend/colleague read your manuscript; read your work again after setting it aside for
a couple of days; have a native speaker proofread for language, if available.

37. © 2017
www.ChemistryViews.org
Getting Help: Resources
Have a friend/colleague read your manuscript; read your work again after setting it aside for
a couple of days; have a native speaker proofread for language, if available.
DOI: 10.1126/science.355.6320.102

38. © 2017
1) Unpublished work is lost and properly communicating science
takes effort
2) A simple writing style is best!
3) Optimize your content for internet use
4) Peer review isn’t perfect but it is the best we have
5) Competition is hard, so make your work stand out
6) Take an active role in promoting your work
Conclusions

39. © 2017
@EnergyTechnol
Questions?
• Contact me:
– John Uhlrich
jjuhlrich@wiley.com
Energy Technology
www.entechnol.de
energy-technology@wiley.com
Submissions:
www.editorialmanager.com/ente/
https://www.facebook.com/EnergyTechnologyJournal/

40. © 2017

41. © 2017
“During prescreening I look for an up-to-date and relevant
bibliography and a clear comparison of the results with
those of previous studies—it is difficult to assess the
significance of the findings if they are not presented in an
appropriate context. I routinely read the literature cited
and conduct my own literature search to check if
important papers have been omitted that may detract
from the novelty of the work.
I also appreciate honest reporting. While your work may
represent an advance, there will certainly be shortcomings
and room for improvement. This should be discussed but is
too often neglected.
A final piece of advice is that as a reader and reviewer of
our journals, you should self-assess your manuscript and
submit accordingly to the most appropriate journal, rather
than the one with the highest Impact Factor. This will
ensure swifter publication of your work.”
Dr. Adam Brotchie

42. © 2017
“Compared to Advanced Materials, Advanced
Functional Materials adopts the same criteria
in terms of scientific novelty and
importance. If the manuscript has been
previously rejected by Advanced Materials,
only a superficial change in the format
(Communication to Full Paper) may still result
in a direct rejection.
Paper evaluation is not a "gambling game",
and it is inappropriate to ignore the previous
comments with the belief that a new group of
editors/reviewers might generate a new
result.”
Dr. Yan Li

43. © 2017
“Think of the reader: Compare your results to
the work of others wherever possible (a good
table/figure helps the reader a lot). And use
the most widely accepted units! If not
possible, give reasons why. Mention and
discuss differences (because that’s what
scientific publishing is about after all… ).”
Dr. Till Graberg

44. © 2017
44
“Novelty and state-of-the-art of the presented
results must be ensured. Incremental results or
simple extensions of published work are not
desired, neither are specialized topics. The title,
abstract, and conclusions, as well as the figures
should be appealing and motivating, and concisely
explain the key findings. The writing should be
easy-to-read and the English should be good.”
Dr. Ingeborg Stass

45. © 2017
Publishers adding value
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/02/01/
guest-post-kent-anderson-updated-96-things-publishers-do-2016-edition/

46. © 2017
• Keeping up with the
“cutting edge“
• Experience: Learning
to write/present and
evaluate scientific
works
• Giving back to the
scientific community
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/09/
top_peer_reviewers_are_motivated_by_their_dedication_to_science.html

47. © 2017
https://mariobarbatti.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/how-many-papers-should-i-review/

48. © 2017
also: http://www.howcanishareit.com/

49. © 2017
Common reasons for rejection
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/career/why-are-academic-papers-rejected-journals
• Scope
• Novelty
• Old topic
• Fragmentation
• Weak conclusion
• References
• Impact
• Referees‘ comments